There is no single authority on Truth and fact. There is not even a
democracy that can ensure truth and fact.

Perhaps, we could think of a secondary layer, even a Wikimedia domain of
its own,  some kind of 'Refined Wikipedia' completely independent of the
current structure, to which, 'refined' and vetted articles may be moved
regularly after some stipulated processes.

-ViswaPrabha


On 25 March 2016 at 15:56, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There are two parts to it as far as I am concerned. More collaboration, I
> am all for it.
>
> The other part is a power grab because it means that things must meet
> "established" requirements, that is imho a bad idea. It establishes power
> struggles whereby established "truths" trump common sense without a
> reasonable argument. The argument given is that it must comply with (insert
> your alphabet soup here) and that does not convince me at all. I have my
> recipe for soup and the only thing done is impose a recipe.
>
> Wikipedia is not Nupedia and the difference is exactly a board that for all
> the "right" reasons failed to get cooperation. It is why your proposal
> fails what Wikipedia is about.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 25 March 2016 at 09:44, Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> > Accuracy" conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a
> > recent discussion with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community
> > input because of the possible controversy that may arise from
> establishing
> > a WikiProject like this.
> >
> > The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:
> >
> > *Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
> > *Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles
> > *Promote/improve collaboration among experienced editors
> > *Promote existing editors retention
> >
> > Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to
> > oversee the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications
> for
> > fact-check teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to
> form
> > additional teams comprising appointed representatives from other project
> > teams to help coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and
> > who will serve as members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board
> > (PAERB). The PAERB will be responsible for review and approval of
> articles
> > nominated to bear the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal in the
> top
> > right corner of the article. The ideas also aim to support the WMF's
> > "Reach" campaign and help establish or re-establish credibility in
> > Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a trusted source worthy
> of
> > citing at all levels of academia, government, research, etc.
> >
> > This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on
> > Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The
> > idea to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial
> board
> > of the project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized
> > skills of all participants.
> >
> > However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is
> > in line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit
> its
> > content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board
> > sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I
> think
> > it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of
> > exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's
> > just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they
> > want)"
> >
> >
> > I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the
> > idea of establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of
> trusted
> > and experienced editors as board members. From the look of things,
> > WikiProject Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians.
> > The controversy will centered on whether this idea is against the vision
> of
> > Wikipedia or not. Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed
> > project.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Olatunde Isaac.
> >
> > Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to