Damn, I went and designed a system like this in my head and never got around to implementing it. (My mom's a research scientist, so I know how they think, and why they don't edit.)
Wikiverify (or whatever you want to call it) would work like this:
1. Do the tooth-and-nails work of contacting universities (maybe just one or two to start out) and verifying faculty in a given field.
2. Write paper letters to a bunch of professors (well, a few to start out) saying we have identified them as leading experts in their field (this always works. flattery is how conferences draw big names). Explain that millions of students around the world, many in poor countries who don't have access to other resources, use wikipedia. Explain that wikipedia text is free for re-use and therefore enriches the knowledge store of the whole world. Invite them to donate their rare expertise by...
3. Reviewing a copy of this wikipedia article (enclosed, on paper). Don't ask them to fill out a questionnaire of any sort. Let them know that they can review in whatever detail they want -- from a one-line analysis ("this article is acceptable" / "this article is not very accurate") to a detailed summary of possible flaws. Give them the option of conveying their response by paper, email, or telephone.
4. If they opt in, set up a Wikiverify profile for them with their picture, their reviews (and maybe the article texts alongside). Ideally, the professors would be competing for status -- "I reviewed more than you!" -- though maybe that's wishful thinking. Possibly include a way for people to send thank-you notes to the professors.
5. Put a template on the article page saying "Dr. Such and Such, professor of whatever at university of ___, has reviewed/verified/vetted a version of this article (link to the version)". If the community doesn't want that sort of thing, whoever runs Wikiverify could drop a note on the talk page instead. Visibility doesn't matter all that much; people are absolutely crying out for this sort of service and will track it down through word-of-mouth if nothing else.
You'd have to do the template thing on a per-professor basis -- professors will disagree about accuracy; sometimes one will say an article's ok and another will say it's not.
6. ???
7. Profit!
Actually, though, there is a problem with trying to do this sort of thing as a for-profit enterprise -- the professors would want to be paid, and they'd want more money than advertising on the wikiverify pages could deliver. Whoever does this (wikipedia or no) probably has to be nonprofit.
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What happens if, after it is certified by this person, someone comes along and edits (changes) the article?
Good point, it needs to specify a date and time (linking to the revision in question).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l