Please don't turn this into yet another claim that the so-called "wisdom of the crowds" is somehow better than, and exclusive of, "wisdom of the experts" ... These are two separate entities, which are both important to any knowledge resource. – Thomas H. Larsen 23:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be a guideline, an essay or what? Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 10:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia exhibits high quality with respect to a number of content areas, typically where there is substantial established academic literature supporting claims. Wikipedia however has serious quality control issues when it comes to BLP (biographies of living persons). I suggest implementing a new policy which states all potential smears (interpret as negative valence classifications) of any living individual must be caveated with "according to [insert media or NG organisation(s)]". Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 23:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Please don't turn this into yet another claim that the so-called "wisdom of the crowds" is somehow better than, and exclusive of, "wisdom of the experts" ... These are two separate entities, which are both important to any knowledge resource. – Thomas H. Larsen 23:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be a guideline, an essay or what? Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 10:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia exhibits high quality with respect to a number of content areas, typically where there is substantial established academic literature supporting claims. Wikipedia however has serious quality control issues when it comes to BLP (biographies of living persons). I suggest implementing a new policy which states all potential smears (interpret as negative valence classifications) of any living individual must be caveated with "according to [insert media or NG organisation(s)]". Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 23:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)