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

[David Gerard]

Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [041117 10:43]:
> --- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> > 'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
 
> But the goal of the project is to create the largest free resource of knowledge
> that has ever existed. Wiki is a means to that end. So if some aspects of that
> process start to result in a drive toward mediocre content, then we *must* make
> some changes to put us back on track. 


We went through this (you and I) on this very list just recently. You're
still reasoning along the lines of:

1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

Not only is this logically fallacious, you haven't really proven 1. as yet.
Note that de: Wikipedia recently beat two commercial encyclopedias in blind
testing without imposing review boards.


> Adding some type of article review system that could scale to cover a large
> part of our content would be a massive improvement. Experts should have seats
> on those review boards, but so should non-experts. Neither the views of experts
> or non-experts would carry more weight - both would be equal (the consensus
> view of the board itself is what would count). 


I suspect review boards will not scale. What is the processing rate of a
review board likely to be? How many articles are there again? How many
being created each day?

While reviewing content sounds like a good ide (to me too), there should be
a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki. I'm
not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
- demotivating for the volunteers.

If it can at all be done within the wiki process, it should be. de: is
solid evidence it can be achieved within the wiki process; neither your
assertions nor those of the Britannica editor are solid evidence it can't.

(And I'm still seeking details of what de: did to get to that standard!
Could someone on de: please tell us? cc'd to wikipedia-l for this purpose)


- d.