I see no reason to expect that popular voting will lead to the best argument winning out for issues where a lot of evidence has to be understood and set in relation.
It seems to me a pretty strange decision to want the barrier of entry as low as possible by allowing IP editors.
I see no reason to expect that popular voting will lead to the best argument winning out for issues where a lot of evidence has to be understood and set in relation.
Does this mean you think the idea, at root, is not worth it, or that you think it will help with some issues and not with others?
It seems to me a pretty strange decision to want the barrier of entry as low as possible by allowing IP editors.
I expect that a high(er) barrier to entry will produce a self-selected subpopulation that will sometimes miss out on important ideas or points that people outside that subpopulation would have thought of. I’m willing to put up with a great deal of dross in order to make sure that all the good stuff is caught.
I see no reason to expect that popular voting will lead to the best argument winning out for issues where a lot of evidence has to be understood and set in relation.
It seems to me a pretty strange decision to want the barrier of entry as low as possible by allowing IP editors.
Does this mean you think the idea, at root, is not worth it, or that you think it will help with some issues and not with others?
I expect that a high(er) barrier to entry will produce a self-selected subpopulation that will sometimes miss out on important ideas or points that people outside that subpopulation would have thought of. I’m willing to put up with a great deal of dross in order to make sure that all the good stuff is caught.