[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia: the Journal

[FT2]

We're no longer a few random people thinking "wouldn't an online
encyclopedia be cool!". As a #5 website and the largest online reference
site, anything that moves us to be capable of higher quality without
compromising the open ethos that ultimately underpins integrity long-term,
is worth considering. Making Wikipedia more approachable by academics is
worthwhile too. A peer reviewed WikiJournal sounds good.

FT2



On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:19 PM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dgoodmanny at gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
> > open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
> > gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of our
> > problems in maintaining NPOV.
> > I suggest we let them develop their model, and we continue ours'.>>
>
> David I think the proposal is for a *new* sister project to Wikipedia, not
> an adjustment of Wikipedia.  Wikinews for example encourages original
> research if you are an eye-witness to something you can write about it.
>
> Citizendium has no traction in the real world (just in their own minds).
> So the benefit of a new sister project might be to try to create actual
> traction with the idea of online peer-review.
>
> I see problems with the idea of "commissioning" works.  When Knol first
> started, they limited it to just invited guests.  Now after some time,
> those
> invited guests have mostly moved on, and their articles aren't doing great
> (in
> general).
>
> I would must prefer a method like WikiAnswers where all readers can *vote*
> on who they trust, and *vote* on good questions and good answers, etc, and
> the highest trusted authorities gradually percolate to the top of the heap.
>
> Then those *trust* levels get translated into the articles they've written
> *AND* the articles they've peer-reviewed.  Does that make sense?  Sort of a
> push-yourself-up-from-your-own-bootstraps method of community consensus.
>
> It surely favors the early adapters, but then all IT does that already.
> And even the early adapters (see early Knolians) can get swamped by the
> more
> industrious and clever and persistent authors.  That however isn't a bad
> thing.  At level 0.5 we'd need to install a panel of judges to settle
> conflict.
>
> Will Johnson
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>