Sorry I haven't been able to keep up with the lists, but I wanted to answer this one.
> From: Anthony Sebastian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I miss a point. > > Will CZ base "approval" on one expert per article, or more > than one, and if the latter, how many? The current plan, which you can view via on the wiki (the Policy Outline), says that one editor's approval is sufficient to approve one particular version of an article, but that another editor may revoke this approval. I think that, until we have the capability of doing this set up in the software, what we'll probably do is link from the top of a page to a page within the article history. Purely as a stopgap measure, this. > Will CZ have the ability to certify an article as > "peer-reviewed" by three or more peers of the author? "The author" (your phrase) uses the definite article. It is unlikely that any article that is ready for approval will have one author, and in any case, it will have in most cases many people who will be ready to take responsibility for it, simply because that's the wiki way. That being the case, and as you will quickly see, the radically collaborative wiki process actually replaces traditional peer review. Now, what we *might* require is that if any person wrote *most* (or even a large part) of some article, then that person must not be the one to approve it. That would provide peer review of a sort. > If no peer-review, does that not render article somewhat ex > cathedra, especially if not extensively source-cited? I agree, and moreover, adding sources to an article removes the necessity for some sort of review. But think about this: if there are a dozen experts working on an article (that probably won't be the usual case, but it will be in some cases), then what would the point be of asking a thirteenth expert to offer *his* opinion about it? --Larry _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
