On 12/12/05, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Some time ago a few people - I was one, but I think Mav may have originated the idea - suggested a review board to arbitrate conflicts over content, which the ArbCom does not do. I still think this is a good idea and I think it is about time we begin a concrete discussion about what such a committee would look like, and what it's procedures would be. For starts, I would say that it could simply arbitrate content disputes by assessing the degree to which a contributor is complying with our Verifiability and No original research policies. This would be a well-defined and narrow mandate which should limit abuses. We should also discuss whether the current ArbCom or the one I am proposing should also arbitrate conflicts over NPOV.
I usually ignore everything written by people who use "it's" correctly, but I make an exception for Ph.Ds, because they're really smart.
I think Wikipedia should n extensive peer-review process designed to make its articles of a quality comparable to professional encyclopedias. There should be a seven-step editorial process, consisting of: 1. Assignment 2. Finding a lead reviewer 3. Lead review 4. Open review 5. Lead copyediting 6. Open copyediting 7. Final approval and markup The bar to becoming a review board member should be relatively high, with the policy stating, "We wish editors to be true experts in their fields and (with few exceptions) possess Ph.Ds." Reviewers should give criticisms, but not do any actual editing on the articles themselves.
I bet that would work so much better than Wikipedia does now.