At Citizendium, or wikipedia, I think this is unnecessary
complication as applied to unapproved articles-- they edit on a wiki,
so they can make corrections as we go. The earlier versions are by
definition working versions that have been supplemented or corrected.
For any system with approved articles, one does need a system of
making corrections. This is one of the reasons I''m rather skeptical
about such schemes--they grow very cumbersome. this proposal is a good
illustration. Less talking about how to correct and more correction is
what is needed. I urge people not to look just at the proposal , but
the discussion.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:43 AM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposals/Self-Correction_Policy
Hmmm. I can see it being nice, I can see it being unmanageable and
full of noise. Your thoughts? What would English Wikipedia do with
something like this?
Any such scheme on a wiki of this size would likely be immediately
unmanageable (and can you just imagine all the new fights over what
gets listed as a factual error?).
However, see the tracking page for error correction following the
December 2005 Nature study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December…
Here there were no fights and no manageability problems because we
were running off an externally compiled list. It was made possible
because Nature released the list of errors that they identified, but
we should endeavour to do this for all external peer reviews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG