[WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles

[William Pietri]

On 04/18/2010 08:42 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> I've always thought it strange that there is no real established
>> process for allowing submission of external peer reviews. There are
>> many articles where there are experts in the topic in question who are
>> quite approachable and could be asked to review the article.
>
> The best method might be that of multiple outside external
> reviews--external in this sense meaning someone who has not
> contributed to the article, as is done in some social science
> journals

That reminds me of something I've been meaning to propose: 
topic-specific groups of subject-matter experts who serve as resources 
for article writers.

My theory here is that experts have more knowledge than time, so rather 
than trying to draw them into the editing process, we'd give them a way 
to engage that makes it as easy as possible for them to do the things 
that only they can do. In my mind, that included:

    * Pointing out the best source documents for particular issues,
    * Serving as on-tap reliable sources for things that may be hard to
      document,
    * Reviewing articles or article sections,
    * With the rest of the group, making clear what the expert consensus
      is on contentious questions, and
    * Suggesting things that they would document if only they had the time.


I saw this mainly as an editor-pull system, rather than a expert-push 
system. Say I'm working on an article where despite my best efforts I 
just can't tell whether the correct approach is A or B (or perhaps an 
NPOV rendering of how A versus B is an open question). Based on the 
category of the article, I go to our expert group and post a question. A 
few days later they respond with an answer and a couple of relevant 
sources, perhaps including a direct statement from them. If no other 
experts contradict that, I assume it's solid and run with it.


I was at a conference last year with some of the Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institution folks, and although they had a number of bones 
to pick with Wikipedia coverage of their topic areas, they had neither 
the time nor the inclination to get involved with editing articles. 
However, when I described an approach like this they seemed amenable: 
something that recognized their status and their very busy schedules was 
more palatable to them.

I figure this would require some custom development and a fair bit of 
staff time rounding up volunteer experts and validating credentials, but 
it's the kind of thing that could be rolled out gradually in a 
topic-by-topic basis.

William