steven l. rubenstein (rubenste(a)ohiou.edu) [041118 04:42]:
I think most veterans are very sensitive about this,
and do a
pretty good job of policing articles for violations of NPOV, and educating
newbies. I just think we haven't done as good a job with
"verifiability." I think the explanation we have on the verifiability page
is very good -- but I am talking about the culture of the place. I think it
is time for people actively to look for opportunities -- on article talk
pages, personal pages, and here -- to talk about "verifiability;" how do
you recognize that an article is verifiable; what are the warning signs
that it may not be; how to go about making it more encyclopedic.
Agreed 100%!
My second suggestion is to try to find a way to
appropriate the one good
thing I have found in peer-review -- when a few scholars who really are
experts in a topic give considerable attention to one person's work, and
give them focused feedback. NOTE, the purpose is not to give a stamp of
approval or to veto the work, the purpose is to engage the work on a very
high level, to call attention to the elements of the work that can be
developed, and to suggest alternatives. I am trying to imagine a process
that is more intense than what usually happens on a talk page. What I
suggest is that there be a directory of editors grouped by expertise on
major topics (biology, art, US history, etc). When it is clear that one
editor is writing a new article or substantially rewriting or adding to an
existing article, members of one of these panels can review the changes as
a whole with an eye towards making constructive suggestions and educating
the new editor in Wikipedia values. There need be no threat of veto or
sanction power -- I think if three veterans reviewed an article of mine and
told me "look, deal with our criticisms now, and address these issues, or
sometime over the next year other wikipedians will spot these problems and
delete or change your work at will," it will be strong enough incentive.
Have a look at [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] or, more intensively, [[WP:FAC]].
The latter can get very pointed and show up deficiencies the original
author never even noticed. The regulars are also relly big on references.
Probably the main problem with WP:FAC is that it may not be very scalable.
It's not quite letting the wiki do the work. There must be a way.
- d.