I would like to make a couple of contradictory points...
One, WMF and the editing communities should seek more, better *external* reviews with some preference ... What we ourselves find and decide about our content is less valuable than unbiased external reviews. That doesn't mean external reviews will automatically be better quality, but external viewpoints are inherently valuable.
WMF sponsored but not influenced external studies may be an acceptable balance point, but that should be carefully thought about.
Two, internal studies are also valuable, but should be done carefully. I have not yet had a chance to follow up the internal study links upthread. The advantage here is that if we can establish criteria that are reasonably robust and externally-reviewed-and-supported, then having internal reviewers rank versus those criteria is likely to get a lot more quantity of review results.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 08/05/2014 17:58, geni wrote:
So while it is unlikely that a published journal article would be a
complete hoax
This is because they have a robust review process, which Wikipedia doesn't. Enough said.
Please robustly define "glaring".
Glaring means obvious, in plain view, manifest etc. I gave some examples here http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/23/islands-of-sanity/
One example:"It can be speculated that one of the first people in Europe who consulted the map was William Vorilong, noted philosopher from England, who was shown the map while travelling with japanese visitor Yoshimitsu Kage." William was French, not English. And he never visited Japan.
Please also understand if I don't accept you as an impartial source on
the matter rendering your subjective judgements of limited value.
They are not subjective judgments, see above. 'Glaring' /= 'subjective'. Why don't you accept me as an impartial source? Because I have written articles critical of Wikipedia? Oh right.
Some of these problems can be fixed. But fixing problems means recognising there is a problem, no?
Edward
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe