Editing Encyclopedia:Historical archive/Policy/Approval mechanism (section)

===Editorial board(s)===

Copied from [[Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]]. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: My thought on this is that there is an immediate problem with 'Any registered user could review any article'.  There's no problem with having anyone review an article - however to improve the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia, I think that we (unfortunately) need a link to the 'outside world' where people have real names and qualifications, rather than 'karma' built up under a nom-de-plume.  For articles' credibility to be increased, someone's, or some people's, reputation needs to be on the line. My thoughts are that a properly constituted editorial board needs to approve (and possibly modify) articles.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, there could (and in my view should) be multiple competing boards aiming to set their seal upon particular article versions.  For example, one such board could be a set of academics in a particular subject whose names are known, who have a publishing record in peer-reviewed journals, and have an academic reputation.  This does not preclude a self selected group of people setting up their own board under noms-de-plume and producing a Wikireputation based set of approvals.  Users would have the choice of using either or both or neither board's seals of approval (article tags) as a filter into Wikipedia. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]] 21:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)