At 03:06 PM 3/20/2007 +0800, John Lee wrote:
On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org wrote:
- Can we really present this in a useful way to the public? "This
article is unverified. However, 3 months and 280 revisions ago, an expert from a university you've never heard of verified it as accurate." Um...
In the Citizendium model, once an article is approved, that's the
version
that people see by default, and the next one in the pipeline only
replaces
the current version after the assigned editor has signed off on that
too.
This strikes me as a major disincentive to have articles verified, since then it would mean all future edits have to go through an expert who may or may not be free to review the edits on a timely basis.
You could have a group of editors designated as potential approvers for an article on a given subject; then the changes can just be approved or rejected by the first one who has time to de-queue them.
Actually I don't think that each new edit is reviewed one-at-a-time by the editors. Once an article has been approved, then it's the usual editing free-for-all for the next draft of the article, but that draft is only visible to people who go looking for it, so the incentive to vandalize it is limited, and nobody has yet staked their professional credentials on it. Then once that's ready to go live, the editor(s) sign off on it.
-Bennett