CZ Talk:Election July-August 2013/Referenda/7: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian No edit summary |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Peter, will you explain to me why you think ref/7 lowers standards. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | :Peter, will you explain to me why you think ref/7 lowers standards. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
::It switches the default. Currently, in the few cases where we have an expert-approved article, that is the default that readers see. Your proposal would replace that with what, in a worst-case scenario, might be a wiki free-for-all version. Or it might be a version directed by non-specialists, such as the ME or EC. | |||
::But remember I'm in favour of time-limiting approvals. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:45, 31 July 2013
I oppose this, for basically the same reason as Ref 6: it lowers standards. Peter Jackson 10:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Peter, will you explain to me why you think ref/7 lowers standards. Anthony.Sebastian 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- It switches the default. Currently, in the few cases where we have an expert-approved article, that is the default that readers see. Your proposal would replace that with what, in a worst-case scenario, might be a wiki free-for-all version. Or it might be a version directed by non-specialists, such as the ME or EC.
- But remember I'm in favour of time-limiting approvals. Peter Jackson 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)