Proposal talk:Develop systems for accuracy review

    From Strategic Planning


    Absolutely needed. Or alternatively, an edit review of high quality articles. But how to implement it? Informally, Wikipedia already undergoes a "peer review", since it is more likely an error or an inaccuracy will be edited than a quite correct text. This works fine only when the editor is no vandal, and when the topic in question is not controversial in itself. A peer review and an edit review should foremost be needed when the topic is controversial, established user editing might be an inferior method here, since the article may be frozen in a bad state.

    Making a formal peer review that is streamlined into the current development process would require some kind of locking, some kind of versioning and special administrative rights for a committee handling an article. I think the idea is an inherently good alternative to be preferred before the troublesome and sometimes ineffective requests for arbitration in case of controversial topics. Rursus 06:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Agree • Definately needed and difficult. This proposal prompted IMS Question and Test Interoperability Assessment Test, Section, and Item Information Model to be included at the revived Quiz and Test and Quiz studies at Wikiversity. Are there other models and specs that need to be added? Please add them there, also please. CQ 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    needed - difficult

    This would work great for FAs and GAs and especially those about science and technology. History, political and cultural articles will be harder since it seems like anyone with any credentials can get something published. I think a process of accuracy review for the top shelf articles, and a policy to help define acceptable sources for those articles not yet ready, will together make for a better encyclopedia.

    The human factor will screw up (again). I doubt, a systemic bias proof system can be found. --KrebMarkt 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "Peer review" is elitist and against the concept of Wikipedia. (See Nupedia). The basic idea of Wikipedia is that your contribution is judged on it's merits not on your qualifications. Someone who has no understanding of the concept can still judge the validity of an editorial contribution if their arguments are sound. In fact, knowing a topic too well can introduce POV into an article. Peer Review should be kept out of Wikipedia. 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Is accuracy a point of view? Or by accuracy, do we mean a quality of content which is more objective than a perspective or a biased collection of perspectives? 08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The proposal as it's currently written is designed to minimize negative impact -- if it doesn't work, or works poorly, it can be abandoned. If, however, the trials succeed, then it could replace and similar pages on other projects as the first stop for any content dispute. If that works, the impact could be very significant and substantial. 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Attempt to describe necessary data structures

    Please see Proposal talk:Assessment content#Normalization of assessment items (questions) in database. 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    French wiki

    English abstract: I think that a peer review is against Wikipedia philosophy and some academic circles will take over the editorial comittee. It will mean the eventual death of the project

    Les articles scientifiques dans fr.wikipedia sont de bonne qualité et ce sans peer review. est un contre exemple. Des Prix Nobel ont vu leur papier rejeté car non politiquement correct. Dans le monde académique, des cliques se forment. Ceci risque de nuire à la sincérité des jugements des referees. Une des cliques va s'accaparer le comité éditorial et va rejeter toutes présentations qui leur déplaisent. Ceci est absolument contre l'esprit de Wikipedia et je pense que ça serait la mort de l'encyclopédie. (Malosse) 02:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Is there any evidence supporting these assertions? 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Need Details

    This proposal presents a worthy goal, but it's absolutely not clear how to implement it. How do you define "peer"? In one sense everyone on Wikipedia is a peer. Perhaps your intent is to have academic experts perform "peer reviews" on articles written by unknown users. This raises more questions. How do you define "expert"? Who will find them? What is their incentive to perform these reviews? Who will pay them? Upon whose shoulders falls the burden of recruiting these experts? How are you going get everyone to agree about who is an expert? What if some article gets a bad review? Is that the end for that article forever? Is there some kind of appeals process? Are only PhD's allowed to perform peer reviews? What about articles with a topic for which there are no academic experts? Can anyone serve as a "peer" for these articles? On a related note, I'd like to propose that we establish world peace and build teleportation machines.

    Working on it.[1] Default labor would be ordinary wiki labor. People will self-select, as they have always done on Wikimedia projects, but hiding the numerical extent of their agreement with other self-declared experts may allow better classification. I agree payment may be a necessary incentive when volunteer effort is not forthcoming. There certainly is an appeals process, on a per-question basis for assessment items, which would translate into a per-diff basis in the article review model you are contemplating. 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Define Voting

    Your proposal is too dense. please define your terms better. what do you mean by voting? can you make a process flow diagram? thanks, mike Mdupont 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The most I can say about voting while the assessment question vs. article diff dichotomy is in my head is that I hope monotonicity can be avoided so that the system won't be vulnerable to strategic or tactical manipulation. 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]