Sheldon Rampton wrote:
The bottom line, though, is that an encyclopedia
article shouldn't
have errors of grammar *or* fact. I know some respected university
scholars who have problems with spelling and grammar, but before
their writings get published, someone fixes those problems. An
article in the Wikipedia that has problems with spelling and grammar
clearly hasn't been through the level of review that goes into a
student's term paper, let alone an article for the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Absolutely right.
I think right now we have a situation of very high average quality
(esp. for articles over a certain length), but with some very
important weaknesses. That's going to be the goal of a review
process: to address those weaknesses while at the same time respecting
and working with our community model.
I'm generally in agreement with what Erik Moeller says about this.
That is, I think that it is best if one way or another our review
process grows organically from our existing traditions of review for
featured articles.
--Jimbo