On 03-09-2002, Anthere wrote thusly :
--- lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote: Perhaps Nupedia could be
pared down to a simpler function, and one that would be easier for experts to participate in: instead of creating articles, or even editing them, why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of articles submitted to them, which then get attached to the articles? Wikipedia authors could, whenever they feel an article is ready for it, ask for it to be submitted to expert review. The expert then just writes what he thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you got that wrong, etc.) and sends it back. The Wikipedia process can then go to work on the article again, with the expert commentary available. That way, the experts never have the problem of having their names associated with the mediocre work itself--only with the review, which is entirely their own creation and therefore ego-satisfying. And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and polishing have the expert's input to work with. The experts will be providing only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't, and no more.
That's an interesting proposition. Also, why wouldnot near-expert wikipedians (considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which they have not been involved themselves but are interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make another 2%.
There was a notion of teaming up groups of Wikipedians around some areas of Wikipedia content - operating systems, unix, punk rock or the Roman Empire.
They should have some infrastructure (namespace ? mailing list ?) to rely on in order to coordinate, review and discuss. Not to mention do some planning and quality assurance.
Regards, kpjas.