[Foundation-l] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_and_the_Wikipedia_process

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 18:21:23 UTC 2008

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

On Feb 5, 2008 6:57 PM, simonpedia <simon at 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
> "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/"http://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
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list