I would like to make a couple of contradictory points...
One, WMF and the editing communities should seek more, better *external*
reviews with some preference ... What we ourselves find and decide about
our content is less valuable than unbiased external reviews. That doesn't
mean external reviews will automatically be better quality, but external
viewpoints are inherently valuable.
WMF sponsored but not influenced external studies may be an acceptable
balance point, but that should be carefully thought about.
Two, internal studies are also valuable, but should be done carefully. I
have not yet had a chance to follow up the internal study links upthread.
The advantage here is that if we can establish criteria that are
reasonably robust and externally-reviewed-and-supported, then having
internal reviewers rank versus those criteria is likely to get a lot more
quantity of review results.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM, edward <edward(a)logicmuseum.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2014 17:58, geni wrote:
>So while it is unlikely that a published
journal article would be a
complete hoax
This is because they have a robust review process, which Wikipedia
doesn't. Enough said.
> Please robustly define "glaring".
Glaring means obvious, in plain view, manifest etc. I gave some examples
here
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/23/islands-of-sanity/
One example:"It can be speculated that one of the first people in Europe
who consulted the map was William Vorilong, noted philosopher from England,
who was shown the map while travelling with japanese visitor Yoshimitsu
Kage." William was French, not English. And he never visited Japan.
>Please also understand if I don't accept
you as an impartial source on
the matter rendering your subjective judgements of
limited value.
They are not subjective judgments, see above. 'Glaring' /= 'subjective'.
Why don't you accept me as an impartial source? Because I have written
articles critical of Wikipedia? Oh right.
Some of these problems can be fixed. But fixing problems means recognising
there is a problem, no?
Edward
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>