At Citizendium, or wikipedia, I think this is unnecessary complication as applied to unapproved articles-- they edit on a wiki, so they can make corrections as we go. The earlier versions are by definition working versions that have been supplemented or corrected.
For any system with approved articles, one does need a system of making corrections. This is one of the reasons I''m rather skeptical about such schemes--they grow very cumbersome. this proposal is a good illustration. Less talking about how to correct and more correction is what is needed. I urge people not to look just at the proposal , but the discussion.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:43 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposals/Self-Correction_Policy
Hmmm. I can see it being nice, I can see it being unmanageable and full of noise. Your thoughts? What would English Wikipedia do with something like this?
Any such scheme on a wiki of this size would likely be immediately unmanageable (and can you just imagine all the new fights over what gets listed as a factual error?).
However, see the tracking page for error correction following the December 2005 Nature study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_...
Here there were no fights and no manageability problems because we were running off an externally compiled list. It was made possible because Nature released the list of errors that they identified, but we should endeavour to do this for all external peer reviews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l