[Wikipedia-l] Certification

[Peter Lofting]

At 12:41 PM -0800 10/31/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
>...It doesn't take an epistemologist to
>see that accuracy cannot be vouchsafed by a vote--10, or 100, or 1000
>approving Wikipedians certainly *can* be wrong!

Sure its not fireproof, but it gives a measure of the degree of 
consensus behind the article, which has some interpretable value:

- Firstly it indicates that the article hasn't been vandalized and is 
not contentious - at least as far as the generalist editorial 
midwives are concerned.

- Secondly it shows that it has passed at least first levels of 
evolution - perhaps only of structure and linking. Interrelationships 
to other info is itself valuable even if the body of the article 
isn't top notch.

To suggest that a votes flag would highlight collective wikipedian 
ignorance on a subject implys the fearful belief that members are 
obliged to know everything. Isn't this belief opposite to the whole 
idea of a Wikipedia?

It sounds like the project is overshadowed by the old social 
expectation of the high standards expected of an encyclopedia 
publisher. The project is bound to lose credibiity if it fails to 
unload this expectation from immature pages. Clear labelling would 
dispell this and reflect that pages are a living, evolving work, as 
well as invite improved contributions.

All that would be necessary to gain credibility with students and 
librarians and experts is to accurately label the status of an 
article. Votes is only part of it. Another label could helpfully be 
added indicating whether the article has been reviewed by subject 
area experts or not.

An endorsement list would be the ultimate way to go, showing 
names/URLs of individuals or bodies who have accepted the page as 
OK/useful, along with a rating value. Amazon.com book ratings could 
be a first model - open to all with a star rating. Note that such a 
list could also reflect variation in evaluation and people could then 
follow links to those endorsers who diverged in their rating to find 
out why.

Another benefit if this is it could divert the energies of those with 
strongly diverging POVs from "vandalizing" the page. They could 
instead channel their energies into expressing their difference via 
the rating and creating a linked counter-page...always room for one 
more page.

Just 2 cents from an interested lurker

Peter.