There are two parts to it as far as I am concerned. More collaboration, I
am all for it.
The other part is a power grab because it means that things must meet
"established" requirements, that is imho a bad idea. It establishes power
struggles whereby established "truths" trump common sense without a
reasonable argument. The argument given is that it must comply with (insert
your alphabet soup here) and that does not convince me at all. I have my
recipe for soup and the only thing done is impose a recipe.
Wikipedia is not Nupedia and the difference is exactly a board that for all
the "right" reasons failed to get cooperation. It is why your proposal
fails what Wikipedia is about.
On 25 March 2016 at 09:44, Olatunde Isaac <reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
Accuracy" conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a
recent discussion with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community
input because of the possible controversy that may arise from establishing
a WikiProject like this.
The primary goals of WikiProject Accuracy are to:
*Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
*Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles
*Promote/improve collaboration among experienced editors
*Promote existing editors retention
Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to
oversee the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for
fact-check teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form
additional teams comprising appointed representatives from other project
teams to help coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and
who will serve as members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board
(PAERB). The PAERB will be responsible for review and approval of articles
nominated to bear the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal in the top
right corner of the article. The ideas also aim to support the WMF's
"Reach" campaign and help establish or re-establish credibility in
Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a trusted source worthy of
citing at all levels of academia, government, research, etc.
This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on
Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The
idea to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board
of the project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized
skills of all participants.
However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is
in line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its
content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board
sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think
it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of
exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's
just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they
I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the
idea of establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted
and experienced editors as board members. From the look of things,
WikiProject Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians.
The controversy will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of
Wikipedia or not. Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed
Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org