--- Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wow, lots of talk about an important subject.
Wonderful.
What TomK has said about this -- that it requires no technical
support, but instead requires defining specific reachable subprojects,
drumming up community interest in them, and providing regular updates
and 'prereleases' with the status of the whole project -- is absolutely
right for the short-term.
Exactly. We should first concentrate on creating progressively longer
WikiReaders before we tackle something as large as an entire general
encyclopedia (even a full concise one would be daunting).
I would vote for World History or Physics, despite the
different topics of
the currently-underway English Readers -- and start defining the scope
of our first validation effort. Feel free to write me privately with other
suggestions, if you don't want to spam the list...
But do we have adequate coverage in that subject area? Also, wouldn't a smaller
WikiReader be a better place to start?
For a longer-term scalable solution, I think a fairly
simple solution which
would improve not only this 1.0 validation but also many other aspects of
WP maintenance, is the creation of a page for explicitly managing
metadata flags for an article -- "stub", "copyvio", ahd "wrong
language"
flags
as well as review flags for higher-order quality validation. See the metada
section of the validation article:
Yes, I think a flag: meta tag would be good for this since that type of
information is really not appropriate for category:.
As Ant has noted elsewhere, the intent of validation
is to get editors
to improve articles, not to encourage them to waste time voting on the
'best' version; as such I think a simple objection/response system, where
each objection should be responded to by some future editor (and where the
articles steadily improve) is a good way to think about it.
Why not readers then? Simply have a 'Rate this article' link in the toolbox of
every article. They could give a 1 to 5 rating across a few different
categories (completeness, readability, and accuracy) and be able to give an
explanation in a text box. The rating would then be associated with the version
that existed when the rating was created.
These data could be part of any validation system by feeding it articles that
readers think are pretty good (a minimum number of unique votes would be needed
to rate any article). Some other mechanism would then have to take place to
finish the validation process.
Just an idea.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/