[WikiEN-l] assessing

[Charles Matthews]

Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>>   I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates 
>> a feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first 
>> draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
>>   
> Yeah, that's kind of where I was driving.
>>
>> I think Carcharoth's point is also valid: that the "working over" of 
>> parts of the encyclopedia doesn't happen for top-down reason, 
>> necessarily. While it is essential for "adding value" that it should 
>> happen, even if only patchily. This has always implied people with a 
>> serious interest in the actual content ... doesn't imply that the 
>> formal review mechanisms should dominate.
>>   
> Not quite sure I understand you here.  You're talking about stuff 
> getting reworked, and there is a top down reason that this doesn't 
> happen?  I think I've lost what the top down reason was.
No, I was trying to say it doesn't happen for any top-down reason ...
> And I'm not sure how or why we're separating out the formal review 
> mechanisms from people with a serious interest in the actual content.  
> Where we're discussing assessments, it has been my experience that the 
> people assessing are the people with a serious interest in the content.  
Not really happy with that equation. But then I have a long-running 
argument with the "per-article" way of looking at our content, anyway. I 
would even argue that it is "serious" to worry about WP  primarily as a 
piece of hypertext. Which cuts right across the talk about definitive 
treatments of certain topics (which in my blacker moments seem to me to 
be pretty much anglospheric and middlebrow in their interest). But no 
doubt I go too far.

Charles