Even though I understand the need to find a way to "prove" some readers the reliability of the article, I feel very much troubled by the notion of peer review.
First because I fail to see how we would decide who is a peer and who is not in some fields, such as games, cooking, opera or cars. What criteria would be used ?
Second, more specifically in science (where peers indeed hold a very important role) because I also failed to see how would somebody "earn" the right to be considered more an expert than all of us together. Most science fields have controversial issues somehow.
We should expect, in science articles for example, a lot of factual information and proofs ('till they are proved false :-)). But we should also expect a whole lot of theories, hypothesis and interpretations of facts. Whatever science subject, one may find two types of information sources, the "school book" type (carefully trying to avoid any in-debt content on questionnable issues) and the "biaised-source" (trying to push its author agenda).
For fact checking, there's no need of a highly considered old professor, just need of a dedicated knowledgeable person.
For non-factual information, I can't see why a knowledgeable old professor (well-known for writing good biaised books or articles ?) would do any better than us together. I don't think any of us can alone achieve neutrality (ie to express all view points on a subject), for however hard we try to get it, we are necessary biaised by our history, culture, origin (and we can't know everything). What makes a good article is not only reliable info, it's also the making up of several people with different inputs.
In my field I know of very very few experts that I would trust for knowing and having an open mind on all the issues, and even less that would resist twisting the article a little bit, to suit their own beliefs/needs. If only because they would also be judged by their own collegues, and probably made fun of for having accepted to let a very crazy and little accepted hypothesis in the way. That would mean for a given field, we would need quite a bunch of experts, not only a bunch of experts from overlapping fields, but also several experts from the very same field, with different angles of views (not only academics but also professionals). That would be quite a lot of people in the end! Well, if these people could be there, for regular work on regular articles, that would not be bad already !
And again, on which criteria would these people be chosen? One criteria I would see, would be that they both reveal themselves known and recognised by their own professional/academic, AND by wikipedians. Meaning they are wikipedians themselves. I see not why our work would have to be stamped "correct and acceptable" by an outsider who would take part of the credentials deserved by a dozen of writers. In my language, we would call that "�tre un n�gre" (no offense meant for black people among you, you don't know, maybe I'm black ;-)).
(Very unfortunately, only choosing reviewers from academics will also weaken principle of value of self education)
For wikipedia reviewing would NOT be similar to a scientific peer work, where people looking at your article do not get their name on the paper, (just participate in the reputation of accuracy and quality of a publication revue:-)). In this case, it's not only fact/accuracy checking, it's also advertising, saying high to the world "this *very famous* guy said Wikipedia made good work here". Yup, isnot that the way Asimov did ? Putting his name in big letters on a book written by others whose names where in small letters ?
Maybe necessary.
But why not publishing some of the best articles on portals or sites recognised for the very high quality of their content rather ? It would have impact. It would remain community work. It wouldnot get a name attached to it. It would be as a limb going away to live a good life on its own, teaching others. It would not be a bunch of dusty pages we would put away, under a glass for protection, with a nice golden ribbon with the stamp on it. Or alternatively, it would not be a bunch of pages only experts could edit, as if any further work from us could sullied it. Yes, *that* is insulting.
BTW, when looking around in wikipedia, I see so many articles that are good ones, but that obviously reflect a very northern view point (not to say north american/british view point :-)). Some definitly lack other cultures perspective to be "honest", such as african and north-african people for exemple. My guess is that to make it a 3 billion users encyclopedia, it is not only for english-mother language people, but for any english-reading potential user. Obviously, it is not easy to involve international-english people to edit articles, otherwise participants will die under loads of articles that would need heavy copy-editing. But...at least...if wikipedia is to be widely used, there are quite a lot of articles that will require review from people from all-over the world to be *certain* they reflect the world diversity of opinions.
--------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes