User:Peter Damian (original account)

My interests, reflected in my contributions to Wikipedia, are

• Philosophical logic, particularly logic before Frege
• Financial derivatives
• London, where I live and work

Work in progress:

• User:Dbuckner/logic
• User:Dbuckner/philosophy
• Philosophy
• User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion (talk)
• User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem (talk)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Elsewhere! (talk)

Question	Evidence	Why important
Is there a problem with the quality of articles in certain areas.	Examples of poor quality articles in different areas. This requires cooperation of editors in other subject areas (there is a vocal group of philosophers, but who else is out there?)	Wikipedia's ambition is to be a good quality internet encyclopedia.	Without good quality articles in all areas, this will not be possible
Is the quality of the article correlated with competence in subject area?	Evidence that the good articles have been written by individuals, or small groups of individuals working together.	There is a widely held view in the WP community that there is no such correlation.	Without a consensus on this question, there can be no change to policy.
Do good quality articles suffer 'edit creep', i.e. degrade because of piecemeal editing?	Diffs from articles that have manifestly suffered loss of quality in this way.	Competent editors will become disillusioned and leave when they see good work degrading.
Are editors of good quality articles leaving Wikipedia?	'Exit interviews', war stories &c	Without editors of good quality articles, there will be no good quality articles.