On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as infoboxes and other bells and whistles.
And those peer review systems have lots and lots of problems as well as upsides. Lots of people *are* trying to reinvent peer review, including some very respected scientists.* As an academic science librarian, I can attest to there being widespread and currently ongoing debates about how to review scientific knowledge, whether traditional peer review is sufficient, and how to improve it. The current system for scientific research is often opaque, messy, prone to failure and doesn't always support innovation, and lots of smart people are thinking about it.
Erik: aha! I'd forgotten about those case studies, thanks!
Given that the post that started this thread referenced medical content, are you telling me that you think it would be useless to have qualified medical experts reviewing Wikipedia's medical content, because the process would be "opaque, messy, prone to failure and doesn't always support innovation"?