Proposal talk:Peer review by academic institutions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Strategic Planning


May sound like a good idea, but I dislike it, because gaining an academical credibility probably requires the organization to change so that it is not any more pleasant to be an editor on Wikipedia. Otherwise this peer review and academic discussion seems related to the discussions in Proposal talk:Improve interfacing with academia, and in Proposal talk:Legitimizing a Scholarly Collaborative. I think peer review could be useful in a few cases if it is internal within Wikipedia, I think expert review could be useful in a few cases when relevant sources are severely missing in our edit discussion, but involving academical persons directly in Wikipedia will not gain us any credibility, it would probably instead make any internal conflicts much worse since academical persons aren't by profession diplomatic the same way a volunteer veteran editor use to become.

I think we should drop this academic credibility stuff, and concentrate on simply credibility and neutrality. Rursus 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the proposal "expert review" is broader in this sense and thus the discussion should take place there. --Hannes Röst 12:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blind peer review is an important process in the dissemination of scholarly materials. If wikimedia wants to be taken seriously by the academic community (which currently it is most certainly not...if I submitted a manuscript for publication with a citation from Wikipedia, the manuscript would be outright rejected). I think there should be wikipedia, which would be for the masses like newspapers, blogs, and magazines and a scholarpedia, which would be for thoroughly vetted sources of materials that would be peer-reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who may be considered experts. A process including only internal reviewers appears to foster group-think and all the other problems associated with academic incest. An outside reviewer is not supposed to be diplomatic. An outside reviewer is supposed to their job and that is to review the work critically and extensively. An expectation of diplomacy encourages the diseases associated with academic incest.

I think that wikimedia could easily set up a registration process, where a reviewer would sign up as a reviewer for wikimedia and include all relevant background information such as experience, published works, and credentials. Then, the prospective reviewer would identify possible areas of expertise. What qualifies as expertise in different areas may be variable. For academic content, it would be quite easy to verify credentials if the prospective reviewer is legitimate.


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 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from elsewhere

(copied from other talk page[1] because I thought it was relevant here). Many universities have compulsory modules on Academic research, often in the first year (UK). The students learn how to cite, reference and provide an accurate overview of competing arguments. Universities should be approached and encouraged to "adopt" a selection of articles that are relevant to course subjects. Students would select an article (or selection) and improve it. The edit history could be submitted as coursework, so students work could be assessed on their contribution. Students wouldn't be cutting and pasting from Wikipedia to produce an essay but be improving citations and references.--Alchemist Jack 12:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]