On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:25:40AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
The review board reviews, they would not edit except
as individuals. A review
may reject an article but have a list of items that would have to be addressed
before the article could be put up for review again. The quality of the process
depends on the mix of people involved and their level of dedication. So yes,
results may vary. But that is no different than dead-tree encyclopedias.
I agree that it's no different to traditional encyclopedias in that
respect.
I feel the risk of the review board is mostly dependent on how much
faith people put in them. If people put too much faith in the abilities
of the review board compared to the normal process, we can get the
situation where people assume the reviewed version must be better than
the non-reviewed version. I was just pointing out that this will not
always be the case. So long as people maintain a healthy scepticism in
the review process, I think there's a lot of potential in the idea.
Shane.