On 7/30/06, Nathaniel Sheetz <preparing(a)psu.edu> wrote:
Why the excerpt? And how would the length be
determined? Including the
lead might be good, but there's huge variability in size there. I'd say
just include the article title.
I think it would be useful as a reference point, just to make clear
that people are not "reviewing Wikipedia", but a specific article, and
to make it super-easy to load the article again. User interfaces that
we take for granted (highlighted tabs etc.) are not nearly as
intuitive to non-regular computer users.
Would we require that they check the last box?
Good point, we might actually make the FDL assignment optional and
send the e-mail even if they do not click it.
I like the email list idea. Easy to use, somewhat
private, less "scary".
We need to accomodate these people as much as possible, and soliciting
reviews via email seems like a good way to go. We would have to make sure
that we take action quickly, however--asking for feedback and then failing
to act on it wouldn't do much for our image. We'd need enough volunteers to
keep this running smoothly.
Making a lot of noise about this on WP should do the trick, especially
if Jimmy gets behind it. ;-)
With or without email confirmation, I wonder what the
noise to signal ratio
will be. Worse than just the normal spam, which is easy to identify, will
be the cases where malicious folks write something that to the untrained eye
might pass as expert opinion but in reality is complete bunk.
Well, it's not as bad as letting everyone edit the articles, is it?
;-) If it gets too bad e-mail confirmation should take care of a lot
of junk.
Erik