Proposal:Expert Review
Every proposal should be tied to one of the strategic priorities below.
Edit this page to help identify the priorities related to this proposal!
- Achieve continued growth in readership
- Focus on quality content
- Increase Participation
- Stabilize and improve the infrastructure
- Encourage Innovation
|
Share this:
|
Summary
I propose that Wikimedia create a network of qualified experts to review Wikimedia's projects (especially Wikipedia).
Proposal
These experts would be given authority to review articles within their field of expertise. After reviewing a page, they could either add a "seal of approval" of sorts or disapprove of the article with reasons cited. These marks would include the expert's name in order to put their academic reputation behind the articles. These marks would be visible to the reader and to Wikipedians (both on the article header and in the talk page).
If Wikipedians wish to re-edit the page after the review occurs, a separate unproven or "beta" version would be created. Readers could choose to read the reviewed or the beta version of the article. The double version method would allow students to have a academically proven source as well as allow Wikipedians to create current versions of articles.
Motivation
Wikipedia is not utilized as a reliable source in the academic community because, unlike academically accepted sources, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. As Wikimedia cannot hire a plethora of experts to write and rewrite the millions of articles that it contains, a review system would create a good compromise between a community and an expert driven experience.
Key Questions
1. What would be the most effective way for experts to post reviews?
2. What fields need review?
3. What should qualify an expert, and how should he/she be chosen and contacted?
4. What, if any, checks and balances should be put in place to keep any one expert from using bias? Maybe revolving editing duties for each article would be appropriate.
5. How should experts be encouraged to edit Wikipedia themselves?
(I know there are many key questions, but I think that they are all relevant).
Potential Costs
- This may cost experts the time of reviewing Wikimedia sites.
- This would cost Wikimedia time and money to create and promote the new Wikimedia expert network.
- This may cost Wikimedia a small cost of running expert approved and "beta" versions.
- The actual recoding could also cost Wikimedia.
References
Community Discussion
Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Expert Review.
Want to work on this proposal?
- .. Sign your name here!