At 03:06 PM 3/20/2007 +0800, John Lee wrote:
On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton
<bennett(a)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