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)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the above argument, but now that I am, I'll keep a lookout for it. It appears to be a variation of ad hominem, and a basis for contributor profiling (which I'm totally against).

I view Wikipedia's sourcehail i am as a single entity: the human race. Expertise and wisdom are what they are, regardless of who wrote them. The nature of any particular article can (and should) be verified for what it is (or is not), independently of where it came from.

The purpose of this page is to help address the quality (including reliability) concerns of the public, by showing what our efforts and procedures are for finding and fixing problems, and by evaluating how effective these efforts have been.

Thank you for your request. I'll do my best.

The Transhumanist 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this into consideration :-). – Thomas H. Larsen 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]