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, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
