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%22http://www.goss... 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/%22http://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
Hoi, When you buy into a model, the model determines your answer. With this model in mind Wikipedia would not have happened. For me it means that this model is nice but it is broken because it does not consider Wikipedia, a project that is wildly successful to the extend that many peer reviewed of whatever level can only be envious.
When you have a model that allows for something like Wikipedia, you have my attention. Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 5, 2008 6:57 PM, simonpedia simon@cols.com.au wrote:
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/%22http://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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org