Andrea Forte wrote:
Exactly! I think that's what I just
proposed. :-) Or, instead of open
ratings, you could use some sample of articles and ask third-party
experts to rate them along various dimensions of quality (accuracy,
comprehensiveness, accessible writing, etc.)
In January, it is anticipated that the long-awaited "article validation"
feature will go live. This is essentially just a system for gathering
public feedback and *doing nothing with it* (at first). The idea is to
simply record feedback on all the articles and then take a look at it
with minimal a prior preconceptions on what it will tell us to do.
[...]
So, how does that differ from a member of the "public" editing by
correcting an article or musing in the talk page?
Action research anyone?