Talk:List of unvalidated deceased supercentenarians/@comment-31321778-20170216200239/@comment-258494-20170216234346

In response to Question 4:

This Wikia was formed and expanded, in part, due to the burdensome editorial process on Wikipedia not favoring sufficient "supercentenarian" coverage. In a sense, the Gerontology Wiki is a "Plan B": necessity is the "mother" of invention.

Wikipedia's current editing process on the "supercentenarians" topic is disjointed, ad hoc, in violation of their own rules and policies, inconsistent, and generally not reliable enough to be cited.

At the moment, the Gerontology Wiki's editing on this topic is united, with a clear vision aligning with the scientific perspective as paramount, while allowing sufficient room for "fans" on this topic to create articles of their own. That said, Wikia is itself problematic when it comes to "a certain level of apparent legitimacy". It's software is rather old-fashioned, burdensome, open-source (not copyrightable), with insufficient levels of editorial protection and control for Bureaucrats/Admins. If someone wishes to "vandalize", vandalism is by default going to get through, under the current system. Moreover, the Wikia itself advertises itself as "Fandom." What this means to me is that we cannot make a "fansite" scientifically credibe or reliable enough to be cited in a scientific publication. What we can do is to allow users to create an informal "cheat sheet", whereby public information is consistently built into the site, in order to display "Quick but unofficial answers". Need to know who the oldest person in a particular country is? You can come here and get a good idea.Ryoung122 (talk) 23:43, February 16, 2017 (UTC)