Template:CharterVote2/4/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Joe Quick No edit summary |
imported>D. Matt Innis (write it out) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Expert's are also expected to ''guide'' content toward reliability and quality. That should be in here somewhere, too. -[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | ::Expert's are also expected to ''guide'' content toward reliability and quality. That should be in here somewhere, too. -[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Make your suggestion and I'll vote. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:42, 16 July 2010
< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Clause 2 needs a qualifier. If editors are empowered to "assure" the site's "reliability" and "quality" at all times, then editors are empowered to swoop down on any unsuspecting writer at any time and badger them about "inaccurate" and "unreliable" content. Writing is a process of figuring out knowledge, working out what's right and what's not. Let the authors author. Editors should be responsible for the reliability and quality of only the APPROVED CONTENT. If it's not approved by our experts, then it's just as good as WP. I propose the following: Jones 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards.
- I'll agree to that. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest "quality-reviewed content", or some equivalent. We have, I think, Developing and Developed for good reason. If Editors only become involved in Approval, we limit too much. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Expert's are also expected to guide content toward reliability and quality. That should be in here somewhere, too. -Joe Quick 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Make your suggestion and I'll vote. D. Matt Innis 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)