User blog comment:Triakula/Proposal of softening citation policy on GWiki/@comment-35470197-20200115122614/@comment-35470197-20200118232414

> I don't see how my proposal is restricting anybody's rights.

This is not referring to your proposal, but your opinion "people who aren't well-versed in googology should not be the ones who vote on the inclusion of a new googological work". Doesn't it mean some restriction of voting? If not, then I just misunderstood the opinion.

> We have dozens of veteran prolific members who contributed important work to this wiki, and they are just as "unsuspected" as our admins.

Right. But in the future, we have many new members in this community. Then new members periodically state that another member should be a member of a panel. (Especially those new members might be multiple accounts of someone who want to be "central" contributors, e.g. members of a panel.) In that case, other innocent new members might feel strange against the way to choose members of a panel.

> The panel I'm proposing will have no power over such things. It's sole purpose would be to decide whether a new googological work is eligable to be presented on the wiki. It will not be given the authority to do anything else.

I think that I understand it. The point is that we do not have an equivalent peaceful way to choose members in a panel. If we choose them by voting, then a panel might be filled with suspected members. If we choose them by opinions of specific reliable members, then the way can look strange for new members, as I wrote above in this comment. That is why I think that it is good to have admins to be members or to choose members in a neutral way.

> The problem is that right now, there are no such guidelines. Nor is there currently any discussion for creating such guidelines.

Right. If we decide to follow proposals in this page, then it is good to start arguments on the topic. (Of course, it is also good to start them before deciding to follow proposals.)

> It should also be noted that the FANDOM guidelines were written - mostly - for TV and Film wikias, whose universe is finite in scope.

I see. But FANDOM does not clarify so, does it? If you are confident about your statement and you think that it is safe even if some member appeals to FANDOM that it conflicts the guideline, then it is ok.

> The problem is that we can to this with any number, and there's an infinity of numbers.

I am sorry that I do not feel it problematic. I guess that you think that the existence of such an article make this wiki inattractive or joking, but I do not think so.

Anyway, I think that it is good to argue on Blirx when we argue on guidlines. If a new guideline says that Blirx is inappropriate, then it is ok. But otherwise, we should accept it.