I thought it may be useful to bring up this old article as it seems to cover
many of the problems we are experiencing due to the success of WMF projects.
In it, Larry makes the point that “The whole purpose of peer review is
quality-assurance”
He goes on to note, “In Lead Review, the reviewer and author engage in a
discussion about the article, via a web forum interface, that leads to the
improvement of the article. Then, in the Open Review step, a public peer
review of the article occurs; this can only be compared to the give-and-take
of the Q&A portion of a conference presentation”.
In light of Sue’s interest in improving an article’s quality, Erik’s work on
Liquid threads, and this discussion last month on the wikitech thread
HYPERLINK
"http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/117895"http://www.gossa
mer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/117895
could we give some consideration to the idea that ALL WMF articles suffer
from a common problem - the lack of a forum, which relates one (or a number
of related) article(s) to its discussion threads in a suitably classified
forum; One that keeps it’s relative position as time passes.
Some of the WMF’s Project sites, particularly, Wikipedia, are quite mature
now. For their quality to improve, it will require the engagement of peers,
most of whom are only engaged in the old publishing process, and the old
conferencing process. Convergence of virtual libraries and virtual
classrooms is changing all that, although a virtual librarian will tend only
to look at implementing functions that can handle higher bandwidth content,
whereas a virtual teacher will tend to look at doing the same with higher
bandwidth (real time) communication tools.
I’ll note the interest in kaltura in this domain (and wikieducator) and
compare it UK’s Open Uni’s Labspace’s tools. HYPERLINK
"http://labspace.open.ac.uk/"http://labspace.open.ac.uk/
The problem we do have is that the designs of a global information network,
and that of a global communications network, require such different
approaches, even though, eventually, one must be made capable of
complementing the other. The common point of coalescence is that every
domain is comprised of global GROUPS. In this domain they range from the WMF
Advisory Board through to the smallest wiki’s peer group.
If they were made more obvious a volunteer would know where to go to find
the one which relates to their interests. A directory to them off the meta
(and others) front page, which would include the Communications Projects
Group, is one obvious suggestion.
Knowledge, we all know, is not something that is delivered. It’s not just
about content. It’s about understanding its meaning, which (as Larry says)
revolves around the give-and-take of a Q&A. The hard part for a wiki
designer is in believing that the Q&A needs to be kept tabbed next to an
article. Enough. If there’s any interest here, would you let me know?
Regards, simon.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1257 - Release Date: 3/02/2008
5:49 PM