--- "Thomas R. Koll" tomk32@gmx.de wrote:

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 08:01:48PM +0200, Anthere wrote:

...

Neat ! I like the idea of double language.

Who is reviewing the contents of the articles just

before you generate

...

the pdf ?

I gonna do as much as I can, but I need help in this review process. There are already a few like CatherineMunro helping and those will get their name in the impress (there's also a *complete* list of registered authors).

ciao, tom

Hi Tom.

Yes, you need help. You already did something great in organising the first publication of our content, which was a serious step in the good direction :-) Thanks a lot for doing this.

But you can't do it all alone. Publication should be a team process and article validation is part of a several step process.

Imho, no article should be printed with Wikimedia approval/support, with no specific review beforehand. Just because if the article contains a mistake (which may or may not be obvious to you), the mistake can't be fixed on a pdf (...) and that could tarnish Wikimedia image.

There have been several times discussions about article validation (or certification ?). But afaik, it was never done till any conclusion and decision of action.

I think that it is high time that this is discussed anew. I have a couple of ideas about this, and I think some could reduce a bit tensions which exist on en:wiki right now (and on de: as well, as I recently heard), and at the same time increase cooperation and people recognition. But I would be happy to hear about other people opinion on that matter. I also know that several people have good ideas on this as well. So...

I set a page on meta to host this discussion, or to be the recipiendary of mailing list discussions.

Please help here : http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_validation

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/