Hoi,
Respectfully, you are wrong. But that is your right. It is exactly for
attitudes like this that I hardly ever edit Wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 27 March 2016 at 10:59, Olatunde Isaac <reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have read through series of comments by amazing
members of the community
here and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project
Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This
is a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia and
normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review process
before they are visible on the main space. Improper review is why most
Wikipedia articles contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases,
and nonsensical or irrelevant text. If there is a way this can be
addressed, why not? Peer review have been funded in the past but as
Wikipedia's popularity skyrocketed, revenues to fund the project stalled
and Jimmy decided to discontinue funding for a salaried editor-in-chief in
December 2001, partly as a result of the internet economy at that time, and
his vision to established an openly editable encyclopedia. Thus, the idea
of funding content creation, editing and editorial review was aborted in
December 2001. Shortly after Jimmy stop paying Larry Sanger who was the
editor-in-chief, he resigned and the Nupedia website at
nupedia.com was
shut down on September 26, 2003, barely 3 months after the [[Wikimedia
Foundation]] was established. Since December 2001, it has become common
practice for the WMF not to fund direct content creation, editing and peer
review. This is a major problem with the idea of establishing "Wikiproject
Accuracy" which rely on paying editorial board members to function.
Wikimedia Foundation cannot fund projects where individuals will create
content, edit or review article as that comes very close to paid editing.
Instead, the foundation fund projects that engage or motivate groups of
people in editing or adding content to Wikimedia projects, such as
editathons, photo walks, or contests.
However, if the appointed or elected members of the Editorial Review Board
of the project accuracy are willing to serve voluntarily, without pay, I do
not see anything wrong with that. Betty and her team of coordinators can
start a pilot, and Wiki project medicine might be a good start, as Stephen
Philbrick rightfully suggested, basically as a result of the importance and
sensitivity of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
initiatives of editors in that area. Wikiproject Accuracy seem like a level
beyond FA. Thus I don’t think anyone would reasonably expects that all
articles in the English Wikipedia will immediately or eventually become FA
talk less of RAAFA. I'm silently saying that it is unreasonable to assume
that all, or even any meaningfully significant proportion of all articles
will reach the level of RAAFA. Thus, I don't see "WikiProject Accuracy"
becoming a major problem. I think Betty Wills (User:Atsme) should go ahead
with the pilot project while we keep our fingers crossed that everyhting
will work out as planned. Let's see what will come out of this in the next
few months.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com>
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Datet;Date:
Fri,
25 Mar 2016 10:27:33
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy
Featured Article, Good Article and point of view, in sequence. Hope that
helps.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to
understand.
I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a
necessity to understand what
is being said.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 March 2016 at 14:13, Stephen Philbrick <
stephen.w.philbrick(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one
will be
> opposed to the goal.
>
> However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
> work.
>
>
>
> *Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
> Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the English Wikipedia. I
> note that page has a scope section with no content as yet. However, I
think
> taking on the entire English Wikipedia is
biting off too much initially.
> Projects such as this work best if started as a pilot project. While
> someone may envision this eventually applying to all languages and treat
> English as the pilot, there is no way in which a project who scope is
over
> 5 million articles can meaningfully be
described as a pilot. Consider a
> much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the
purview
> of wiki project medicine might be a good
start, primarily because of the
> importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> initiatives of editors in that area.
>
>
> *Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a
group
> called the Project Accuracy's Editorial
Review Board (PAERB). Are these
WMF
> employees? Editors who meet some criteria?
Who establishes the criteria?
>
>
> *Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
> Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on
any
> particular article, as that article could
change literally seconds
later. I
> see two possible options although there may
be more. The first and most
> likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
> but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
> been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
> add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection.
It
> would probably have to be a new level of
protection allowing only
qualified
> editors, either members of the PAERB, or
vetted by the PAERB to make
> changes. The second option will require a whole new level of
bureaucracy.
>
>
> *Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that
> RAAFA
> is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that
all
> articles in the English Wikipedia will
eventually become FA, so that
> implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
> meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
> RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital
articles?
Sphilbrick
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>