On 13 Sep 2004, at 15:47, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
Message: 6 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:06:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com
We need a way to select content for the print/stable version and to make sure that that content is good quality and can be trusted.
-- mav
Yes we do.
But as I've explained here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
we do ''not'' need to give any preference to "experts" (ie. people who can demonstrate prior achievement) to make that happen. We ''can'' build a review club in the best Wikipedia spirit and it will work for the same reasons that Wikipedia works.
-- Jens
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
On 13 Sep 2004, at 15:47, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
We need a way to select content for the print/stable version and to make sure that that content is good quality and can be trusted.
Yes we do. But as I've explained here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
we do ''not'' need to give any preference to "experts" (ie. people who can demonstrate prior achievement) to make that happen. We ''can'' build a review club in the best Wikipedia spirit and it will work for the same reasons that Wikipedia works.
You propose: "Review club members would need to be very aware of their limits and they should clearly say when they don't feel qualified enough to make a judgment on an article. This is where the review club ''could'' also solicit outside opinions, but only if the review club ''agrees'' it lacks the relevant knowledge to do the work alone." -- (the above linked post)
So, if the Review Club has sufficient expertise, it reviews the article itself. If it feels unqualified, it solicits outside expertise. Forgive me if I've butchered the intent of your post, but this sounds pretty close to a requirement for expert knowledge to me. Moreover, a weakness of this system is that the Review Club could easily make a mistake and not realise when it has insufficient expertise -- people generally dislike admitting their limitations. It seems much better to me to have mandatory input from some expert with evidence of his or her achievement.
-- Matt (User:Matt Crypto)
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Yes we do.
But as I've explained here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
we do ''not'' need to give any preference to "experts" (ie. people who can demonstrate prior achievement) to make that happen. We ''can'' build a review club in the best Wikipedia spirit and it will work for the same reasons that Wikipedia works.
Each review club should have the ability to say what mix of certified experts (that is, somebody with a relevant degree or lots of outside experience) vs self-taught and trusted Wikipedians should review articles under the review club's jurisdiction.
Either way, each person (expert or not) reviewing an article can veto the opinion of the other reviewer about adding the stable tag. That way experts have no more power than anybody else.
As already noted, there are strengths and weaknesses with trusting experts or non-experts alone. So in many cases (esp in the sciences) a mix of the two will be needed to judge whether or not an article is complete, presents the consensus view of the relevant field, mentions outside views with the appropriate detail, is reasonably complete, and does not contain any obvious errors of fact.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail