Hoi,
Respectfully, you are wrong. But that is your right. It is exactly for
attitudes like this that I hardly ever edit Wikipedia.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 27 March 2016 at 10:59, Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have read through series of comments by amazing members of the community
> here and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project
> Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This
> is a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia and
> normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review process
> before they are visible on the main space. Improper review is why most
> Wikipedia articles contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases,
> and nonsensical or irrelevant text. If there is a way this can be
> addressed, why not? Peer review have been funded in the past but as
> Wikipedia's popularity skyrocketed, revenues to fund the project stalled
> and Jimmy decided to discontinue funding for a salaried editor-in-chief in
> December 2001, partly as a result of the internet economy at that time, and
> his vision to established an openly editable encyclopedia. Thus, the idea
> of funding content creation, editing and editorial review was aborted in
> December 2001. Shortly after Jimmy stop paying Larry Sanger who was the
> editor-in-chief, he resigned and the Nupedia website at nupedia.com was
> shut down on September 26, 2003, barely 3 months after the [[Wikimedia
> Foundation]] was established. Since December 2001, it has become common
> practice for the WMF not to fund direct content creation, editing and peer
> review. This is a major problem with the idea of establishing "Wikiproject
> Accuracy" which rely on paying editorial board members to function.
> Wikimedia Foundation cannot fund projects where individuals will create
> content, edit or review article as that comes very close to paid editing.
> Instead, the foundation fund projects that engage or motivate groups of
> people in editing or adding content to Wikimedia projects, such as
> editathons, photo walks, or contests.
>
> However, if the appointed or elected members of the Editorial Review Board
> of the project accuracy are willing to serve voluntarily, without pay, I do
> not see anything wrong with that. Betty and her team of coordinators can
> start a pilot, and Wiki project medicine might be a good start, as Stephen
> Philbrick rightfully suggested, basically as a result of the importance and
> sensitivity of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> initiatives of editors in that area. Wikiproject Accuracy seem like a level
> beyond FA. Thus I don’t think anyone would reasonably expects that all
> articles in the English Wikipedia will immediately or eventually become FA
> talk less of RAAFA. I'm silently saying that it is unreasonable to assume
> that all, or even any meaningfully significant proportion of all articles
> will reach the level of RAAFA. Thus, I don't see "WikiProject Accuracy"
> becoming a major problem. I think Betty Wills (User:Atsme) should go ahead
> with the pilot project while we keep our fingers crossed that everyhting
> will work out as planned. Let's see what will come out of this in the next
> few months.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com>
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Fri,
> 25 Mar 2016 10:27:33
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy
>
> Featured Article, Good Article and point of view, in sequence. Hope that
> helps.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to
> understand.
> > I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a necessity to understand what
> > is being said.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 25 March 2016 at 14:13, Stephen Philbrick <
> stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one
> will be
> >> opposed to the goal.
> >>
> >> However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
> >> work.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
> >> Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the English Wikipedia. I
> >> note that page has a scope section with no content as yet. However, I
> think
> >> taking on the entire English Wikipedia is biting off too much initially.
> >> Projects such as this work best if started as a pilot project. While
> >> someone may envision this eventually applying to all languages and treat
> >> English as the pilot, there is no way in which a project who scope is
> over
> >> 5 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
> >> much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the
> purview
> >> of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
> >> importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> >> initiatives of editors in that area.
> >>
> >>
> >> *Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a
> group
> >> called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these
> WMF
> >> employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?
> >>
> >>
> >> *Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
> >> Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on
> any
> >> particular article, as that article could change literally seconds
> later. I
> >> see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
> >> likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
> >> but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
> >> been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
> >> add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection.
> It
> >> would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only
> qualified
> >> editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
> >> changes. The second option will require a whole new level of
> bureaucracy.
> >>
> >>
> >> *Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that
> >> RAAFA
> >> is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that
> all
> >> articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
> >> implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
> >> meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
> >> RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital
> articles?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sphilbrick
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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