On 9/12/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/12/06, Carl Peterson <carlopeterson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What would be ideal is if we could establish a
content-area (i.e.,
WikiProject) peer review as a prerequisite for the purposes of content
(esp.
for technical articles)
Not too difficult to set up, in theory. WikiProject-run peer reviews
(in the Wikipedia "get advice for an article" sense, not the academic
sense) are becoming more common (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_peer_reviews); and
more FAC-like evaluation (rather than suggestion) methods are also
being attempted (e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessm…
).
... then have it go to a "Brilliant Prose
Committee" of
qualified persons (e.g., people with actual degrees or a lot of
experience)
to evaluate the writing style, the readibility,
the grammar, etc.
Presumably the nominator would still have the primary responsibility
of fixing the article to meet the criticism of the committee, rather
than actually having the committee be rewriting the thing?
But this hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting wide support,
obviously, if only because of the ensuing bloodbath over who would be
on the committee. ;-)
--
Kirill Lokshin
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In my mind, the process for the committee would be similar to the RFA,
except that no new sysop privileges would be granted per se and the criteria
would be a history of edits of high literary quality, preferably with major
contributions of that nature to an existing featured article. While I would
prefer doing it on the basis of real-life credentials, i.e., education and
work experience, I realize that it would not be a very Wikipedian way of
settling things (on the order of WP:OR) and that an English professor does
not necessarily make a good Wikipedia writer.
And yes, primary responsibility would still rest with the person making the
nomination.
Carl