Template:CharterVote2/4/Discussion

< 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)

What about

2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards.

3. in guiding content development towards approval and reapproval.

or simply

2. in guiding content development towards reliability and quality.

instead of the two above?

--Daniel Mietchen 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is overlap with article 7. --Daniel Mietchen 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) #2 alone deals nicely with avoiding making Approved the only place where there can be oversight. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)