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

===Disadvantages===

I am not sure there are any significant disadvantages of an approval mechanism, but idly, I think there might be one. I think that it's possible that Wikipedia might become more of an "exclusive club" than it is, if people start comparing nascent articles contributed by new contributors to the finished projects. I might not want to contribute two sentences about widgets if I think ten neat paragraphs, with references, is what is expected. Again, I don't know if this is really apt to be a problem.

Another general argument against is that this really doesn't seem necessary.  An approval mechanism has been suggested since Day One of Wikipedia, and evidence aside that Wikipedia is working just fine, will probably continue to be suggested 'til kingdom come.

* An expert-centered approval mechanism might be considered a hierarchic methodology, in contrast with the bazaar-type [[open-source]] projects like wikipedia, that are known to achieve good results (e.g. [[Linux]]) through aggressive peer-review, and openness ("With enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow"). It can be argued that the ''very reason'' Linux has become so reliable is the radical acceptance, and for some degree, respect, for amateurs' and enthusiasts' work of all sorts.

* Experts have controversies among themselves: for example, many subjects in [[medicine]] and [[psychology]] are highly debated. By giving a professor the free hand in deciding whether an article is "approved" or "non-approved" there is a risk of compromising the [[NPOV]] standards by experts' over-emphasizing their specific opinions and area of research.

* Finding an expert who corresponds to a certain article can sometimes be troublesome:
**Can a Ph.D on applied Mathematics "approve" articles on pure mathematics?, or more strictly, should one be accepted as a approver only if he/she have made research on the specific subject he/she is approving? Who will decide whether a person is qualified for approval?
**Some obscure or day-to-day topics don't have any immediate "expert" attached to them. Who will approve articles on hobbies, games, local cultures etc.?