At 08:55 -0500 16/12/05, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Andrea Forte wrote:
Exactly! I think that's what I just proposed. :-) Or, instead of open ratings, you could use some sample of articles and ask third-party experts to rate them along various dimensions of quality (accuracy, comprehensiveness, accessible writing, etc.)
In January, it is anticipated that the long-awaited "article validation" feature will go live. This is essentially just a system for gathering public feedback and *doing nothing with it* (at first). The idea is to simply record feedback on all the articles and then take a look at it with minimal a prior preconceptions on what it will tell us to do. [...]
So, how does that differ from a member of the "public" editing by correcting an article or musing in the talk page?
Action research anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research