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

[David Gerard]

steven l. rubenstein (rubenste at ohiou.edu) [041118 04:42]:

>  I think most veterans are very sensitive about this, and do a 
> pretty good job of policing articles for violations of NPOV, and educating 
> newbies.  I just think we haven't done as good a job with 
> "verifiability."  I think the explanation we have on the verifiability page 
> is very good -- but I am talking about the culture of the place. I think it 
> is time for people actively to look for opportunities -- on article talk 
> pages, personal pages, and here -- to talk about "verifiability;" how do 
> you recognize that an article is verifiable; what are the warning signs 
> that it may not be; how to go about making it more encyclopedic.
 

Agreed 100%!


> My second suggestion is to try to find a way to appropriate the one good 
> thing I have found in peer-review -- when a few scholars who really are 
> experts in a topic give considerable attention to one person's work, and 
> give them focused feedback.  NOTE, the purpose is not to give a stamp of 
> approval or to veto the work, the purpose is to engage the work on a very 
> high level, to call attention to the elements of the work that can be 
> developed, and to suggest alternatives.  I am trying to imagine a process 
> that is more intense than what usually happens on a talk page.  What I 
> suggest is that there be a directory of editors grouped by expertise on 
> major topics (biology, art, US history, etc).  When it is clear that one 
> editor is writing a new article or substantially rewriting or adding to an 
> existing article, members of one of these panels can review the changes as 
> a whole with an eye towards making constructive suggestions and educating 
> the new editor in Wikipedia values.  There need be no threat of veto or 
> sanction power -- I think if three veterans reviewed an article of mine and 
> told me "look, deal with our criticisms now, and address these issues, or 
> sometime over the next year other wikipedians will spot these problems and 
> delete or change your work at will," it will be strong enough incentive.
 

Have a look at [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] or, more intensively, [[WP:FAC]].
The latter can get very pointed and show up deficiencies the original
author never even noticed. The regulars are also relly big on references.

Probably the main problem with WP:FAC is that it may not be very scalable.
It's not quite letting the wiki do the work. There must be a way.


- d.