Gerard Meijssen HYPERLINK "mailto:foundation-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%0A%09h ttp%3A//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_and_the_Wikipedia_process&I… ly-To=6hfqa5%242p5r5r%40smtp05.syd.iprimus.net.au"gerard.meijssen at gmail.com on Tue Feb 5 18:21:23 UTC 2008 said 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 I’m not sure what you mean by “Wikipedia, a project that is wildly successful to the extend that many peer reviewed of whatever level can only be envious”. Every wiki article, we both agree, is peer reviewed to some degree through editing. And some knowledgeable reader who comes along at some point in time will want to add or edit something. Five years (say) of editing pages has produced a library of articles which are seen by a global majority of viewers to be as good as something produced by “professionals”. And yes, paid professionals have reason to be envious (if this is what you mean). The point now, using en.Wikipedia as the most mature library, is that many researchers will want to use it as “their library”, in the same way as they do with their professional journals. At least, I think, as a starting point, where they might offer references to their more in-depth publications. In this regards, the model offers a global framework for learning. It’s not like say, the Open Courseware (OCW) initiative, where individual unis offer “their” me too content on “their” domain, and the duplications are as many as the domains. Theirs is a model based around the institution, not the user. All I’m saying here, is that if we take the wiki model and apply it to communications in the same way that it’s been applied to building a global library, then you might be led to the idea that the global groups, who you can identify by clicking on a history tab, are not always going to be around (in fact rarely are at the same time). So as a mature page becomes ‘hardened’ then we need to encourage less editing and more understanding of the discussions which went into making its ‘quality’. Logically, this means that when a search tool offers a WMF sponsored page to a searcher, then we should help newbies by offering them a place where they can read through a synopsis of the FAQ’s which reflect the page’s learning, and perhaps points to times when they can attend a(n online) conference, ask questions and tutor one another. my attention. I hope this clarifies that I’m not trying to introduce a new model here; just trying to understand its evolution. I agree with you, “the model determines the answers”. I’m just a little concerned about the HYPERLINK "http://wikipediasurvey.org/"http://wikipediasurvey.org/ This group from the UNU is a OCW partner. They’re not used to using the same model as WMF communities do, so if you read their cut and paste “About the Wikimedia Foundation” = The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content = you might be led to believe that the Foundation’s aim is about just building libraries. And aims are only half the story. Its mission = Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge = implies that people can find a way to understand why content exists, and explain why (sometimes) its not quite right. Understanding, as you know, is the last 10% of any learning. It just happens to be the most important part. Is that OK? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1260 - Release Date: 5/02/2008 9:44 AM