Ryan Norton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Delirium wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
One of Wikipedia's biggest issues has always been getting taken seriously as an encyclopedia, or being accepted by educators as a reliable (or even acceptable) source. Credibility is also the thing other encyclopedias (i.e. Britannica) harp on. Credibility also brings donations and other kinds of support and funding.
We can pretend it doesn't matter what people think of us, but if we do I think we're sticking our heads in the sand.
I think this is an issue better solved by the validation project that's being planned for some time now.
That process is called FAC :). You could have something like "Featured Article Review" that periodically goes over the FAs to make sure they meet the standard etc...
Well, I meant the broader validation project that's been discussed on and off. FAC is a somewhat high standard; there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles not up to that standard that are still good and reliable (but incomplete) sources of information. Ideally we could have a few grades ("unreviewed", "not crap", "pretty good", "featured" or something). In addition, it'd be nice to tag particular revisions---there's currently no guarantee that the current version of a featured article isn't filled with recently-inserted errors.
-Mark