I think I'm about to spend most of this email agreeing with you.
Daniel Mayer (maveric149(a)yahoo.com) [041118 07:19]:
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
wrote:
> We went through this (you and I) on this very
list just recently. You're
> still reasoning along the lines of:
> 1. We must do something.
> 2. This is something.
> 3. Therefore, we must do this.
No, my reasoning is that there is a good deal of FUD
about Wikipedia right now
and that some of it is *valid.* Just pretending that everything is fine as is
does not move us forward.
Fair enough. I'll certainly acknowledge that.
> Not only is this logically fallacious, you
haven't really proven 1. as yet.
> Note that de: Wikipedia recently beat two commercial encyclopedias in blind
> testing without imposing review boards.
I would like to see the same test done on the English
version before I jump to
that conclusion.
Indeed!
IS THERE ANYONE ON DE: WHO CAN ANSWER THIS FOR US??
We also need a way to mark articles as being OK for a
1.0 version. We *can not*
just give out the most recent database dump.
I would certainly agree with that.
> I suspect review boards will not scale. What is
the processing rate of a
> review board likely to be? How many articles are there again? How many
> being created each day?
There could be different levels of review; at the
lowest level we would have
what we have now, on top of that could be a reader feedback mechanism that is
in beta, the top level would be a review board review. The strengths of each
should be leveraged on the other. Users should have a choice of which versions
to use.
I'd like to see a more wikilike method than a review board. Something that
would naturally scale, at least. An appointed board or a WP:FAC-style
examination won't scale as we will need.
I'm not sure (or unsure) Magnus Manske's experimental review software on
test: is the perfect example, but it's interesting to consider. What
results would we get from letting the wiki do the reviewing? (What gaming
would the POV warriors try?)
Scale issues are very important so we must develop
ways to to quickly review
content. Only by starting on that road can we work out bottlenecks. Note: that
the featured article process selects the best of Wikipedia content and is
therefore slow. Review boards would not have 'best of' as part of its criteria
but would look at a short list of criteria before marking it as reviewed. Such
as:
1) Does it cover the basic aspects of the subject?
2) Are there any obvious errors of fact?
3) Are alternate views given an appropriate amount of space and qualified?
4) Mechanics (spelling, garmmar, etc)
Yes. Wikipedia Adequate Prose, as opposed to Wikipedia Brilliant Prose.
> While reviewing content sounds like a good ide
(to me too), there should be
> a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki.
I agree. That is why Bryan and I have suggested that
users be given the most
recent version by default with a link to the last reviewed version.
I'm not actually so sure about that, but that can be debated further later.
> I'm
> not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
> would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
> - demotivating for the volunteers.
I AM NOT REPUDIATING WIKI!! I want to add better
review mechanisms onto what we
are already doing (which is not pure wiki). When I say that wiki is a means to
an end, I am just pointing out that the product is more important than the
process. But if changes in the process harm the product, then those changes
will have to be modified. That is as true for wiki as it would be for any
review system.
I agree. But I think care needs to be taken with the review system (I think
we will need one) not to appear to repudiate the wiki process either.
We really have generated a tremendous amount of quality text with the wiki
process. What Wikipedia has done really is remarkable.
> If it can at all be done within the wiki process,
it should be. de: is
> solid evidence it can be achieved within the wiki process; neither your
> assertions nor those of the Britannica editor are solid evidence it can't.
Again, we need a way to check content before
publishing it in print or digital
media. We also need a way to give users the *option* to see those checked
versions so that they do not have to worry if some nut job distorted the facts
presented in the article version the user is reading.
Of course.
(Stgable versions will also require pulling in the stable versions of
images, to e.g. avoid pulling in chimp images for George W. Bush.)
Studies that show the average quality of Wikipedia are
better than other
encyclopedias will be *very* little comfort for those people who happen upon a
particular article in a sub-par state (however brief that may be).
Well, yes ... I'd personally still prefer the current version of an article
appear by default with a link to the stable version. But that's a separate
(though related) issue.
> (And I'm still seeking details of what de:
did to get to that standard!
> Could someone on de: please tell us? cc'd to wikipedia-l for this purpose)
Yes - that is very important information to know
before we proceed with
anything.
There must be SOMEONE reading this who is familiar with de:.
- d.