[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and content

[Mark Richards]

I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
Mark

--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sheldon writes:
> > A wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to an
> end,
> > not an end in itself. The end goal here is to
> create a
> > free, accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia. The
> wiki
> > aspect of Wikipedia has enabled it to move rapidly
> in
> > what is generally the right direction, but in the 
> > process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone 
> > can edit any article" has been adjusted already in
> > various ways: sysops, soft and hard bans,
> arbitration,
> > and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules could be
> > adjusted further. For example, there is no reason
> in
> > theory why ...
> > ...the point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to
> rely
> > on "some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process" ....
> > ...We can specify any process we want....
> 
> 
> Very well said!
> 
> I think that for some time Wikipedia has been
> effectively
> ruled by a clique that has some affinity for
> anarchy; they
> have elevated the Wiki software to the level of an
> ideology.  But all of the rules you mention are
> necessary
> developments for Wikipedia to achieve its goal -
> being a
> reliable and respected open-source encyclopedia.
> 
> Adding a level of peer-review, or having a subset of
> our
> articles reviewed by people with academic degrees in
> the
> field are also possibilities to add onto the system
> we
> already have.
> 
> A note about the accuracy of our articles:
> Obviously, gross
> errors and POV pushing usually get quickly fixed. 
> Wikipedia's Achilles' heel is the minor error, which
> can
> continue uncorrected for months or years.  If somone
> wrote
> the wrong birth and death dates for various
> scientists, or
> rabbis or singers, or if someone made a mistake in
> naming
> the university they went to,how many people would
> spot the
> error?  With the exception of articles on famous
> people,
> darn few.
> 
> The probable existence of thousands of minor
> uncorrected
> errors is one of the major arguments for a new level
> of
> review by people with some sort of academic
> background in
> the field, or by one who can be trusted to do some
> serious
> research.  Such a level of review would not take
> away from
> anyone's ability to contribute; it would only
> improve the
> accuracy of articles we already have.
> 
> 
> Robert (RK)
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
> http://my.yahoo.com 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com