User talk:Atsme/WikiProject Accuracy

Your thoughts, please?
Hi, Doc - I would like to get your input on a project I just created - WP:Project Accuracy. I've started out testing the water with a few editors I trust for doing quality work, and was hoping you could give me your blessing because what I'm trying to accomplish will unite the various project teams so that we're all accomplishing the same goal - accuracy and protection of promoted articles. I'm pretty excited about this project because I believe it will have a positive influence on the project in a number of different ways. In the interim, I hope you'll bear with my initial fumbling as I try to collect and organize all the thoughts that are running through my head. This is what I've done so far based on my preliminary thoughts regarding project goals and ultimately, protection of promoted articles that carry our "project seal" indicating the highest level of promotion. What I'm proposing would be an excellent means for countering vandalism, and also protecting against inaccuracies by establishing qualifying editorial teams to fact-check the criteria. Once promoted, reviewed and approved for accuracy (RAAFA) sealed articles could be protected in much the same way special permissions pages are protected in that you have to be qualified and approved to directly edit that level of article. If you're not, when you click on "edit", you will get a message that you don't have permission to edit at that level along with a polite and encouraging explanation of how to get approval - sorta like captcha protection in a way. Our project's qualifying participants could also include approved, qualified members of other WikiProjects with established criteria, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. The protection afforded those top level articles would be similar to that of semi-protection with pending changes review, (until someone comes up with a better idea) so we're still maintaining the original intent of WP to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We're simply adding safeguards against vandalism and potential inaccuracies. Further, the inclusion of our Project Accuracy seal at the top of the promoted page will help establish and solidify WP articles as not only accurate, but trustworthy in that they have been peer-reviewed by qualified individuals (including experts or professionals in many cases) and/or have undergone editorial review - something we can promote to all levels of academia, all facets of research and to just plain knowledge seekers. We can spread the word via an outreach incentive about WP new accuracy project insuring the quality, accuracy and trustworthiness of its articles as a result of newly organized, highly qualified project teams, not too unlike what you've already accomplished with your project med articles. I'm just taking it a step further by including a wider range of articles and applying a few extras for good measure, like copyediting for appeal to general readers, an organized fact-check/accuracy-check criteria, and editorial oversight/review by qualified teams. I also think it will encourage more qualified editors to come to the project, not to mention improving editor retention by eliminating the disruption of vandalism and inaccuracies. What do you think? Atsme 📞📧 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hum. There have been discussions from time to time about semi protecting FAs. I do not think it gain traction though.
 * I liked the idea of pending changes but just find it slow and thus do not add it to articles.
 * One potential issue is that high quality articles do go out of date. Would we have an expiry on this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood, but hopefully what I'm proposing will afford us another shot at semi-page protection. The pending changes review process doesn't work because it has no bite. I spent 1-1/2 hrs. on that process yesterday only to be reverted so if IPs aren't going to respect it, why deploy it?  Is it possible to get a cost vs benefit analysis regarding the vandalism that occurs by IPs in comparison to how much time is spent cleaning up the mess?  I cringe when I see the multiple cases filed at AN/I and on various other noticeboards regarding the problem, not to mention the issues I handle quietly for articles on my own watchlist when the bot fails to catch them.  Just look at  TP.  Common sense tells us there is far too much time wasted as a result.


 * Re: expiry times - not necessary since edits could still be made directly by any registered user with that level of permission much the same way we acquire auto patrolled rights. Other changes can be requested on the article's TP. Sealed articles will still be the responsibility of the relative project teams and/or stewards of those articles as they are now but with one exception: Project Accuracy coordinators (PAC) will also maintain watchlists and continue to coordinate with the various project teams and FA stewards.  I also see potential for adding a reassessment or update process, all of which is part of the details that still need to be worked out.  As  said, the devil is in the details. I must say that I find the following sense of reasoning regarding WP's quality articles seriously lacking as reasoning:  Wikipedia's best articles are highlighted in the list of featured articles. These articles were granted "featured" status because they were judged to be of high quality by other editors. (If later edits reduce the quality of a featured article, a user can nominate an article for removal from the list.)  That last sentence not only discredits the entire project but it speaks volumes as to why our quality articles need protection.  Can we remove or edit that help page?  Anyway, I'm hoping my proposal for PA and overall concept of the project, its goals and potential will help us achieve protection for quality work while lending credibility to WP as a RS.
 * Re: expiry times - not necessary since edits could still be made directly by any registered user with that level of permission much the same way we acquire auto patrolled rights. Other changes can be requested on the article's TP. Sealed articles will still be the responsibility of the relative project teams and/or stewards of those articles as they are now but with one exception: Project Accuracy coordinators (PAC) will also maintain watchlists and continue to coordinate with the various project teams and FA stewards.  I also see potential for adding a reassessment or update process, all of which is part of the details that still need to be worked out.  As  said, the devil is in the details. I must say that I find the following sense of reasoning regarding WP's quality articles seriously lacking as reasoning:  Wikipedia's best articles are highlighted in the list of featured articles. These articles were granted "featured" status because they were judged to be of high quality by other editors. (If later edits reduce the quality of a featured article, a user can nominate an article for removal from the list.)  That last sentence not only discredits the entire project but it speaks volumes as to why our quality articles need protection.  Can we remove or edit that help page?  Anyway, I'm hoping my proposal for PA and overall concept of the project, its goals and potential will help us achieve protection for quality work while lending credibility to WP as a RS.


 * Project Accuracy will be an organized community effort that brings project teams together in a united effort. Since the focus of project teams is content, it aligns with the focus of PA. Perhaps each team could hold elections and appoint their own representatives to act as coordinator(s) who work with PA coordinators, and together comprise the Project Accuracy Editorial Review Board (PAERB). They are the ones who will give the ok to affix the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal to an article, thus the term "RAAFA sealed article".  The articles we will be working on initially will be GAs and FAs that have already passed scrutiny by qualified reviewers. Those articles will be further reviewed by another team of qualified editors (as with the FA process) per the criteria of Project Accuracy, and presented for consideration to the PAERB who will affix the RAAFA seal to the article. It is not too unlike the process in a quality peer-reviewed Journal.  If we can get the WMF to approve it and help with our outreach and promotional efforts, we will be on the road to credibility regarding the negative perceptions of WP by the general public, academia, and researchers.  PAERB would be the highest level of review in the content review process, and the RAAFA seal will indicate a high level of reliability because of the process itself and the qualifications of editors who review the articles and comprise the PAERB.  I've been putting my big toe in the water and conducted random tests presenting the concept to students, parents and teachers, and received positive results.  Perhaps the WMF could create a little survey to learn more, or maybe the PA team could create a survey and ask WMF to deploy it.  I'm not sure how that works but it would be helpful to get feedback from academia and the general public to see if such a process would lend more credibility to WP articles that carry the RAAFA seal.
 * Project Accuracy will be an organized community effort that brings project teams together in a united effort. Since the focus of project teams is content, it aligns with the focus of PA. Perhaps each team could hold elections and appoint their own representatives to act as coordinator(s) who work with PA coordinators, and together comprise the Project Accuracy Editorial Review Board (PAERB). They are the ones who will give the ok to affix the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal to an article, thus the term "RAAFA sealed article".  The articles we will be working on initially will be GAs and FAs that have already passed scrutiny by qualified reviewers. Those articles will be further reviewed by another team of qualified editors (as with the FA process) per the criteria of Project Accuracy, and presented for consideration to the PAERB who will affix the RAAFA seal to the article. It is not too unlike the process in a quality peer-reviewed Journal.  If we can get the WMF to approve it and help with our outreach and promotional efforts, we will be on the road to credibility regarding the negative perceptions of WP by the general public, academia, and researchers.  PAERB would be the highest level of review in the content review process, and the RAAFA seal will indicate a high level of reliability because of the process itself and the qualifications of editors who review the articles and comprise the PAERB.  I've been putting my big toe in the water and conducted random tests presenting the concept to students, parents and teachers, and received positive results.  Perhaps the WMF could create a little survey to learn more, or maybe the PA team could create a survey and ask WMF to deploy it.  I'm not sure how that works but it would be helpful to get feedback from academia and the general public to see if such a process would lend more credibility to WP articles that carry the RAAFA seal.


 * In summary, I actually do believe all articles should be semi-protected because doing so doesn't actually prevent well-meaning IPs from editing to improve articles whereas it does help prevent vandalism because of the extra step required in the process. Well-meaning IPs can easily apply for clearance just as they do now and edit to their heart's content.  I also see editor retention and the efforts of hard working content creators to be equally as important, and know how frustrating it can be when vandalism, trolling and sock activity creates disruption.  It not only chips away at article credibility, it creates hurdles for editors to overcome, is a major time sink, and an incentive killer.  For the sake of brevity I'll summarize simply that WP:Project Accuracy is a community project with a focus on (1) creating incentive for editors to invest more time in creating quality articles, (2) helping to strengthen WP project teams and (3) building credibility to the reliability of RAAFA sealed articles which further lends credibility to WP as an accurate and reliable source.
 * In summary, I actually do believe all articles should be semi-protected because doing so doesn't actually prevent well-meaning IPs from editing to improve articles whereas it does help prevent vandalism because of the extra step required in the process. Well-meaning IPs can easily apply for clearance just as they do now and edit to their heart's content.  I also see editor retention and the efforts of hard working content creators to be equally as important, and know how frustrating it can be when vandalism, trolling and sock activity creates disruption.  It not only chips away at article credibility, it creates hurdles for editors to overcome, is a major time sink, and an incentive killer.  For the sake of brevity I'll summarize simply that WP:Project Accuracy is a community project with a focus on (1) creating incentive for editors to invest more time in creating quality articles, (2) helping to strengthen WP project teams and (3) building credibility to the reliability of RAAFA sealed articles which further lends credibility to WP as an accurate and reliable source.


 * And Doc, in closing I wanted to acknowledge the wonderful accomplishments and huge strides you've made toward improving the public's perception of WP's medical articles, and how Project Medicine has set the standard for other project teams to follow. It's remarkable to say the least. Yours and the team's work in that area is exemplary, nope not enough - extraordinary. What I'm hoping to accomplish with Project Accuracy is that it will provide organization and a sense of community that builds on the spirit of team camaraderie and cooperation among the projects by recognizing accomplishments and protecting the work that was invested in creating quality articles (thus building morale). The RAAFA seal affixed to an article will let readers know the article has been peer reviewed and approved by the PAERB who have determined the article meets all the criteria for reliability.  Think of it as the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval .  Atsme 📞📧 21:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These are interesting proposals. I cannot say that I support the whole package, but I think it deserves discussion. Thanks Atsme. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Semi protection does prevent IPs from editing articles, and it stops newbies as well. I think it would be very contentious to apply that more generally. Pending changes or flagged revisions in some form or other is very different, everyone can still edit such articles, but your edit has to be approved by another editor. As for the project, it seems very bureaucratic to me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspectives for which I thank you, . Doc, if it's okay with you, I moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accuracy using the templates.  If not I'll be happy to self-revert.  I'd like to ask a few more questions and make some suggestions as work-arounds to some of the issues being raised and didn't want to inundate your TP.  Atsme 📞📧 15:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspectives for which I thank you, . Doc, if it's okay with you, I moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accuracy using the templates.  If not I'll be happy to self-revert.  I'd like to ask a few more questions and make some suggestions as work-arounds to some of the issues being raised and didn't want to inundate your TP.  Atsme 📞📧 15:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Atsme, as a mind-focusing exercise consider what would have happened had FR/PC been in place when you joined Wikipedia. Your first 10 edits (and probably quite a bit further) would all have been rejected prior to going live under PC; how would you have felt as a good-faith newcomer if the first thing to have happened to you on Wikipedia was that (despite the "anyone can edit" banners) whatever edit you made, it didn't become visible, and your talkpage promptly filled up with uw-nor1 and uw-spam1 messages? It's no secret that Wikipedia has a serious problem retaining new editors (see this thread if you like raw data and shiny multi-coloured charts), and there's an extremely fine line between "maintaining quality" and "biting the newcomers", one which IMO your proposals—with their implicit assumption of bad faith from anyone without a seal of approval granted by your proposed council of elders—falls well onto the wrong side of. &#8209; Iridescent 16:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How I would have felt is an excellent question, . Perhaps you chose my initial edits inadvertently, but they actually exemplify why Project Accuracy and the RAAFA seal with accompanying semi-protection is so important.  My initial newbie mistakes are evidence of the need to improve the current process to make it more user friendly with help and guidance in the proper direction.  Instead of getting the help and guidance I needed, my edits were immediately reverted (ELs to PBS docs), and I was mistakingly blocked for something I didn't do (and unblocked with the admins recognition of his mistake). My initial experiences were so discouraging that I stopped editing all together for 2 years then came back after retirement, returned to editing, was again unjustly bitten as a newbie, sought mentorship and with his help, created my first article, got it promoted to GA, then as a self-starter helped get a few of the same articles I was initially discouraged from editing 2 years earlier, expanded them and helped get them promoted to GA and FA.  I drew from those early experiences when drafting this project, and also from my experiences as both a reviewer and contributor to DYK, GA and FA promotions.  I am also a pending changes reviewer and know what an absolute waste of time and effort that process can be.  As a copyeditor, I've been asked to assist editors whose first language is not English and help them get the articles promoted to GA and/or FA, and can attest to the fact that there is a substantial amount of IP vandalism that plagues certain topics and makes it extremely difficult to get them promoted.  Once they have been promoted and are featured on the main page, the vandals swarm like bees around a disturbed beehive.  I've had to request semi-protection several times, but as soon as the protection ends, the vandalism returns. I believe you mentioned before that there are stats showing a kind of cost vs benefit analysis regarding the benefits of unregistered IPs, or something like that?  I also want to make sure we're on the same page regarding IPs - registered IPs can edit semi-protected pages but drive-by IPs cannot.  What do you believe is so difficult about registering that we have to endure the disruption of IP vandals?  I never considered registering to be an issue or inconvenience.  IPs can keep their anonymity so I don't understand the reasoning behind not registering.  Atsme 📞📧 18:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unregistered accounts and IPs are the same thing. If you create an account you become a registered editor, if not, or if you don't log in you are an IP editor. Received wisdom is that yes there are some very good and active IP editors, and enough good editors start with a few IP edits that allowing IP edits is our secret sauce that enabled wikipedia to thrive when several competitors failed. I'd also add that while some editors believe that requiring everyone to create an account would deter more vandals than it deterred goodfaith editors, others including myself ascribe to the theory that vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise; Under that theory not only does requiring everyone to create an account lose more goodfaith edits than badfaith ones, it also makes the badfaith ones a little harder to spot. As for the theory that  having your edit greeted with the response "your edit won't appear until another editor has checked it", I can see why that would deter some vandals, for goodfaith editors it should count as a reassurance. It certainly doesn't bother me when I get that in various language wikipedias. As for whether more goodfaith newbie edits would be discarded, I think that depends on the rules we implement and how harsh the taggers are. One of my concerns is that Wikipedia is such a lottery for newbies, your first edit of an unsourced but true sentence could be reverted as unsourced or you could be thanked for it depending on the tagger. But as your experience shows that is already the case. What I think we could gain would be that all edits by newbies and ips would be looked at at least once. So the blatant vandalism that I pickup while typo fixing would be reduced.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was probably thinking IP_block_exemption and misapplied it. Thank you for the explanation, WSC.  From what I've gathered, newbies including IPs are best served with warm welcomes and help in learning the procedures for editing protected articles.  I'll venture a guess and say few if any in the newbie category are able to just jump in and start editing without having some knowledge of WP editing protocol, and/or HTML.  With that in mind, when IPs want to edit a FA that also carries the RAAFA seal, why can't they simply be directed to Edit_requests (if that's not being done already in the protection banner) where they can find instructions for how to edit protected articles.  Applying the template:  to the article's TP is not difficult.  The following diff examples the process and demonstrates how an article several editors worked hard to improve and prepare for GAN was saved from a potentially disastrous edit: .  I don't understand why the same consideration that is given to IPs shouldn't apply equally to veteran editors who are in the trenches doing the clean-up, creating content, copyediting, and trying to get articles promoted to GA and FA, etc.  Do we even know to what degree the contributions of our veteran editors have helped WP thrive and grow to what it is today?  Perhaps these are things we need to know to help improve editor retention?


 * Articles that are slated for promotion with the RAAFA seal after review by the PAERB certainly deserve consideration for semi-protection and are as worthy, if not more so, than highly vandalized articles. Case in point: Adolf Hitler, semi-protected against vandalism even though there is still a great deal of room for article improvement.  That article did not pass the stringent review process of FA and probably would not have passed a PAERB review which speaks volumes to the purpose of Project Accuracy and what we're attempting to accomplish with regards to WP articles garnering attention as trustworthy reliable sources.  I certainly hope we can raise the bar and think outside the box with regards to what articles we're protecting and why, and what messages we're sending to improve public perception about WP as a trusted source.  I suppose it's foolish to expect the latter when the project itself doesn't consider its articles reliable. SMirC-what.svg  Project Accuracy could do so much in the area of improving the credibility of the encyclopedia through its PAERB - RAAFA seals, even if we start out slowly, focusing only on promoting and protecting the few (relative comparison) FAs we have by following through with the creation of a PAERB and affixing the RAAFA seal to the FAs that have passed review.  I also believe it will help in the area of editor retention and morale, and extended WP's reach by improving public perception.  Please keep thinking about it and again, thank you for sharing and providing your valuable input.  It is much appreciated, and you can rest assured that I'll be considering all angles.  Atsme 📞📧 21:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Atsme, I'd agree that goodfaith newbies should be welcomed and treated well. Our record of turning round vandals and Trolls however is that we are wasting time and energy if we do more than Revert, Block and Ignore, and I'm not sure we do better with spammers. Lots of editors start with non neutral editing and even copyvio, and those editors are worth spending time on. So I would differentiate sharply between goodfaith and badfaith newbies. As for newbie edits to FAs, some newbies do start with good edits, many FAs would benefit from better images and adding/replacing images is something many newbies can do. Many FAs need to be updated in line with new secondary sources and sometimes those updates will come from IPs and Newbies.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Atsme, I'd agree that goodfaith newbies should be welcomed and treated well. Our record of turning round vandals and Trolls however is that we are wasting time and energy if we do more than Revert, Block and Ignore, and I'm not sure we do better with spammers. Lots of editors start with non neutral editing and even copyvio, and those editors are worth spending time on. So I would differentiate sharply between goodfaith and badfaith newbies. As for newbie edits to FAs, some newbies do start with good edits, many FAs would benefit from better images and adding/replacing images is something many newbies can do. Many FAs need to be updated in line with new secondary sources and sometimes those updates will come from IPs and Newbies.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I just spotted this. An idea I discussed with was to approve a specific version of the article, rather than protect the article from further changes, and place a link to the static and approved version in a prominent place at the head of the unapproved and 'dynamic' article. Then the dynamic article can continue to be updated and possibly improve. A further feature would be an app to compare the approved article with the dynamic one, to see whether an 'upgrade' to the approved article was necessary. This would not be intrusive on the normal Wikipedia process. Peter Damian (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that has potential. The tricky bits will be those subjects where multiple experts are required, and those where the the immediacy of Wiki editing outweighs the advantages of peer review. For example: I'm not qualified to precis anyone's scientific theory, but if I see their obit in the Times I can update the article on them accordingly. Perhaps we could try to get consensus from the community for the sort of link you mention, then spinoff WP:Wiki Project Peer Review from this, and then work with GLAM and medicine folks to get some peer reviews.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Raised concerns
Following are some of the concerns that have been raised regarding (1) protection of RAAFA sealed articles - see project page for definitions & scope, and (2) WikiProject Accuracy as being bureaucratic: Please use Comment or Suggestion, Oppose, or Neutral. Atsme 📞📧 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Semi-protection helps stop vandals but also prevents newbies from editing. Please make suggestions for work-arounds and share your thoughts as to why you do or do not believe it prevents newbies from editing.
 * 2) Project seems very bureaucratic. Please make suggestions for work-arounds and share your thoughts for why you do or do not believe the project seems bureaucratic and how best to work-around that concern.
 * Note: Please maintain the following formatting: {{xt| By: {{your sig starts new comment}} then hit return and use the number formatting #- Comment or Suggestion.  You can also start a new line if you simply wish to Oppose or Agree and then sign.

Comments
By: Atsme 📞📧 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Suggestion - modify the semi-protect banner at the top of all FA & RAAFA sealed articles with brief but friendly encouragement to newbies defining the article's status, encourage TP discussion, and add a link to WP:Project Accuracy. Reverting the edits of newbies occurs far more often and is far more discouraging than teaching and encouraging them to edit.  Semi-protection of peer-reviewed, high quality, FA & RAAFA sealed articles (the latter of which has undergone the highest level of editorial board review) is a major step in the process, not a preventative; rather, it can be incentive to grow with the right approach.  Crate training a puppy is far more productive, less labor intensive and much kinder than waiting for them to have an accident in the house and rubbing their noses in it.  If an IP is knowledgeable enough to edit an FA - RAAFA sealed article, they are versed enough to know how to login. We already semi-protect and full-protect articles that attract persistent vandalism; therefore, protecting WP's best articles makes perfect sense.  Perhaps the WMF should evaluate the benefits of protecting FA & RAAFA sealed articles using a cost vs benefit approach.  If that has already been done, please provide a link.
 * 2) Neutral - I don't consider cooperation among project teams for the purpose of organizing and implementing a quality editorial review board as bureaucratic so I am unable to offer a work-around.  No one is being forced to promote an article to FA and/or RAAFA; rather, it is incentive-driven volunteerism that rewards achievement by recognizing the hard work that produced quality results. Atsme 📞📧 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

By:  Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  01:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment:  I find projects are irregular mechanisms for quality control; for example the opera and classical music projects were just horribly nasty about the inclusion of infoboxes, to the point that it went to ArbCom with the result being one of their worst decisions ever. (But not unlike some others they made subsequently, all under the heading, "slap the bullies on the wrist and go after the reformers with both barrels").  At the same time, we have a large number of people dead set against WP:Local consensus -- except at MEDRS and Pseudoscience, where they are pretty harsh at enforcement of project control to the point that they really can be advocacy ducks.  (Sometimes they are right, such as smacking down the flat earth proponents over and over again, but sometimes they can get awfully nasty).  JMO.

By: White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment: In order to work this, involved editors would have to be willing to help the newbies or IPs whose edits they are declining, or it wouldn't work. (Well, it'd work to keep GAs and FAs at that level, but wouldn't work for getting and keeping new people.) Like Montanabw, I believe in stewardship and watching articles. I have one article that is on the verge of being a GA, and while it's not about a particularly popular topic, I'm going to keep it watchlisted. Personally, I'm surprised by the kinds of things that get vandalized here. United States Pony Clubs got vandalized constantly until I requested semi-protection, but the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, which I had feared would get blasted by animal rights people, has never (yet) been messed with. I've done the newbie mentoring thing a couple of times too, and it is rewarding. (I don't know how I'm able to do it either...I don't have any kind of teaching or education background.) White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

By: ThurnerRupert (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) - contribute instead of invent an already dead horse
 * 2) as discussed on the mailing list there are some initiatives of the same style, slightly different focus. to copy some examples mentioned by User:Gnangarra, Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, WikiProject_Manual_of_Style. to develop an online test which can be taken by contributors instead of reading a zillion of help pages.

Opposed on just about every level
I came here in response to this


 * This project is wrong-headed on about every level. In an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, in a world unfolding in realtime, there is no way to ensure the accuracy of any sentence in any article in Wikipedia at any time after someone has reviewed it. Leaving a seal would mean it was OK (based on that one editor's perspective and skill) but ten seconds later the content could be changed, or the world could change .  The seal will always be misleading.  ( redacted Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC) )
 * There is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page that says that WP is not necessarily accurate. That is there for very sound legal reasons.
 * This project overlaps with the goal of every WP:WikiProject and redundancy is not a useful thing where there is limited resources (and volunteer time is a very limited resource)
 * The "Participants" section on the front page mis-states the mission of Wikipedia (it is not accurate). It reads: "Please join us in this ambitious endeavor and help solidify WP's reputation as an accurate and trustworthy source of general knowledge for readers and researchers at all levels."   "General knowledge" is not what we are trying to provide.  Per WP:NOT, the mission of WP is to provide articles, each of which is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."  That is what we are up to here.  There is a big difference between "accepted knowledge" (which we find in reliable sources created by experts in their fields, or which we more generally find in publications with a reputation for fact-checking, and which we summarize here in WP) and "general knowledge" (which opens the door to all kinds of OR and fringe-y garbage); the lack of clarity on what we are even up to here in WP,  goes to the core of why this "accuracy" project is a bad idea. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct in so far as things currently stand, "there is no way to ensure the accuracy of any sentence in any article in Wikipedia", and that is exactly what Project Accuracy proposes to correct.
 * You are correct about the disclaimer which can remain for legal reasons.
 * I disagree that redundancy is not a good thing.
 * Ahhh...a misstatement (aka inaccuracy) and further proof for why we need Project Accuracy, including its redundancy. The statement quoted as being a misstatement is not a misstatement at all.  It was neither stated as nor did it imply it was the mission of Wikipedia rather the statement was a plea for help, and invited others to join in an endeavor to solidify (Webster def: make or become solid) WP's reputation as an accurate and trustworthy source of general knowledge.  It states Project Accuracy's mission, not WP's.  The world already knows that WP has a reputation for inaccuracy and that it is not trustworthy, and therein lies the problem.  Students (at all levels) are not allowed to cite WP because of its unreliability.  Furthermore, 2014 stats demonstrate some of the issues, including no readership growth; trailing the global trend.  It also suggests that we "Focus on opportunity for improvement".  By denying Project Accuracy and an Editorial Review Board, we are denying opportunity for improvement while maintaining an unsustainable status quo.  Project Accuracy neither creates articles, nor does it edit articles - it corroborates information in articles using the respective cited sources.  The EDR will comprise members from various Project Teams, including Project Med which actually does strive for accuracy, so please use valid arguments when presenting an opposing view. Atsme 📞📧 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your response to point #4 is exactly why this project will fail and demonstrates the problematic aspects with regard to the whole notion of "accuracy". In my view the statement i quoted is a) very clearly a statement of the mission of Wikipedia; b) is an inaccurate statement of the mission; and c) reflects a lack of understanding of the mission that means this whole project is on an unsound footing (any wikiproject that is mis-aligned with the mission of Wikipedia is subject to MfD, by the way - the mission of every wikiproject must be within the mission of WP.  Must be).  You, who are claiming ownership of this project, disagrees with every one of those things.   Completely closed to what I am saying.  This is what happens all the time here.  This project is a lead balloon as it is currently framed . Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC) (add refinement via REDACTJytdog (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC))

I see no reason to be mean-spirited about this,. Focus on content, not contributors. It's a proposal, it can be modified and refined. You do no good to anyone by complaining about ownership and describing someone's well-intentioned proposal as a "lead balloon." If you attack someone, they will, of course, feel rather defensive, so simply look for the good here and suggest some ideas that could build on this to improve the project. (It isn't an all or nothing proposal!) I'm personally neutral on the proposal as I see problems, but I also see plusses, and am waiting to see what is refined. Montanabw (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In that light, perhaps one thing that could be done is a fact-checking review (where all footnotes are reviewed, etc.) and then a "last clean" version can be noted (via a logo on the article page, perhaps) where people could click to compare that version to the current one, thus seeing at a glance if there were major changes. Montanabw (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you Montanabw. My intention is not to be mean-spirited at all.  I'll be frank; ~some~ of my opposition to this is about Atsme.  If you don't understand why I said WP:OWN, you should ask, but I will go ahead and just point to this and her response to me above. This is not my first rodeo with Atsme aiming to "help" the project.  Her efforts to bring "accuracy" to the G. Edward Griffin article resulted in at least a couple months of dispute and walls of text from her and several noticeboard discussions, and led to no changes in the article, and from there she there went on to the misguided "COI ducks" and "advocacy ducks" essays (the first of which blatantly cast community consensus as conspiracy and was deleted by a landslide, and the latter of which is at least no longer blatantly offensive, but both of which arose out an "an anti-establishment medicine POV." as others noted) In the past, when Atsme talked about "accuracy" she didn't mean what the community means; perhaps that has changed.  But based on her response above, it hasn't much.   I for one don't want her near any "accuracy review board" for anything related to health.
 * Other parts of my opposition to this initiative, as it has been framed thus far, are general and not related to her,  and are laid out above. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why I am really realizing how much we MUST NOT focus on contributors,, only content. (I'm not perfect myself, it's a work in progress)  Once upon a time, Atsme and I really spatted too; we're now over it.  She's had some changes in her views of me, I've had some changes in my views toward her, and because I've come to see her as a nice person who really wants to help out, and by looking at her actual work without an emotional trigger, I'm seeing a person with a very sincere desire to be HERE to improve the encyclopedia.  I'm neutral on this particular idea until I see how it develops, but if we can avoid personalizing the dispute, the ultimate outcome is apt to be something that, one way or the other, helps.   Montanabw (talk)  22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been involved in a lot of collaborative efforts in my lifetime and like it or not, the people who are involved matter a great deal. Not completely, but a great deal.  I have made clear what parts of my opposition are personal and which are not.  My opposition is not all personal; do not misrepresent me and frame it that way. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts
I was recently asked to comment on this proposed WikiProject. For background, I'm a founding member of WikiProject Oregon, which I would regard as highly successful over a 10 year period; and also of several other WikiProjects that have not been as successful. Effective collaboration on Wikipedia is my central professional interest.

Overall, I am always pleased to see people looking to innovate with WikiProjects. It is an important model, and research has demonstrated that WikiProject activity can be a strong motivator to help people become regular, productive Wikipedia contributors.

The first thing that stands out to me is the list of participants, which currently includes only one person. It is my strong impression -- and I believe there is research that corroborates -- that the main challenge WikiProjects have is attracting and sustaining contributors. Since there are many proposed WikiProjects at any given time, and also many WikiProjects that have gone entirely dormant, I believe it's very important for any new WikiProject to demonstrate a credible ability to attract participants. This is not necessary for a WikiProject to exist, but I believe it should be a necessary condition before it is presented for serious consideration by the broader Wikipedia or Wikimedia community.

The other thing that stands out to me is what I understand as a suggestion that accuracy is a sufficient criterion for an article to be worthwhile in an academic context. But we have extensive quality criteria already, which go far beyond accuracy; neutral point of view, article stability, thoroughness, appropriate weight, etc. are all regarded as significant in Wikipedia circles, and in academia as well. Why the emphasis on accuracy?

Again, I think it's worthwhile to explore new WikiProjects, and new ways of running them. I applaud the effort, but not necessarily the early broad promotion. I think this one needs a bit of work before there is something worthy of serious broad consideration. -Pete (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, !! Your thoughts are most welcome. You are absolutely correct in that the Project has not yet grown its participants, but I am working on it and I sincerely hope others will join me.  I figured it would require a substantial amount of time to launch, and I'm quite grateful for the input I've received so far.  Your words are truly encouraging and will be carefully considered.  There is also a fragmented discussion taking place on my user talk page with more creative ideas from  and .  This kind of collaboration is exactly what we need.  Thank you again. Atsme 📞📧 00:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Atsme, I wonder if you could say more about how this would fit into existing quality processes. The page says that, ideally, articles with this seal of approval could be cited at "all levels of academia, government, research," and that the project would promote GA & FA articles to RAAFA status. That kind of sounds as though you're proposing a level of quality higher than FA, but by including GAs you also make it sound like a parallel process. SarahSV (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi,, yes, the RAAFA status would be a level above in that FAs would be reviewed by a qualified Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising members that have met certain qualifications; the latter of which will be determined by the various project teams. Currently, we have 4731 FAs which will keep the ERB quite busy for a while.  The intention is not to undermine or lessen the impact of FAs or the current review process of quality assessment - quite the opposite - rather it is a program designed to further validate and enhance those promoted articles with a level of review that can be "marketed" (recognized) and further promoted outside WP as reliable because of the way Project Accuracy and the ERB will be structured; i.e., a well-balanced, qualified team of editors following an established set of criteria to help ensure accuracy by corroborating information in the article with the cited sources, etc.  One could liken it to a WP image enhancement campaign in that it will be further boosted by publicity designed to improve public perception of WP as a reliable source.  Of course, the finer details still need to be worked out and there will be some learning curves after launch.


 * We currently have a variety of active project teams overseeing and promoting articles within their respective projects, and that isn't going to change. Project Accuracy will simply become part of that activity, and basically serve as a central coordinator to help other project teams present their FAs for review by the ERB.  The creation of an ERB for the purpose of recognizing and validating WP's finest articles has nothing to do with growing beaurocracy or creating elitist groups or any of the other concerns that have been raised for whatever reason. In a nutshell, the Project Accuracy Seal of Approval on an article is recognition that the article has been reviewed for accuracy and reliabiity by a qualified ERB.  I fail to see how that could ever be interpreted as a bad thing for WP.  Instead, I hope it provides incentive for our highly qualified editors to participate in such a worthy endeavor, and also restore or create a sense of accomplishment for a job well done.


 * Oh, and SV, I recently added a comma after GAs in the sentence you mentioned above about promoting GAs & FA articles to RAAFA status. I will probably have tweaked the page further by the time you read this, but the original intent was to "collaborate with other WikiProjects in the review process by helping to promote GAs, and FAs to RAAFA status."  The "helping to promote GAs" meaning encouragement and incentive for further promotion to FA and ultimately to RAAFA.  Thank you for further demonstrating why we need an ERB. 😆 There is no doubt in my mind that Project Teams are what help bring WP into focus with organization and goals.  Experts often comprise the teams which is clearly another plus.  I cannot overemphasize the benefits of having project teams, particularly exemplary teams of experts like what comprises Project Medicine.   has done wonders in organizing and achieving such high levels of credibiity for that team.  We should all be striving to achieve those same goals; i.e., quality, accuracy and reliability in our articles rather than defending the fact that WP is not reliable or accurate and should stay that way.  Project Accuracy does not alter the fact that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The level of protection I've proposed in an effort to protect promoted articles against vandalism and/or misinformation being added is pending changes review, which maintains the "anyone can edit" philosophy while helping to ensure the integrity of promoted articles.  I see the latter as further incentive for attracting more qualified editors to WP.  I would also like to see a cost vs benefit analysis which actually supports the reasons for not protecting our finest articles to ensure their accuracy and reliability.  Atsme 📞📧 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This may have been lost in the stuff above, but I wanted to add the suggestion that, because of how WP can be edited by anyone, (pending changes helps with vandals but little else) perhaps one thing that could be done is that the group's official. approved version could be considered a "last clean" version with the permalink noted (via the logo on the article page, perhaps) where people could click to compare that version to the current one, thus seeing at a glance if there were major changes to review. This would avoid some of the concerns about a) shutting down the "anyone can edit" principle, and b) A changed article no longer meeting the criteria yet having the star.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  22:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Atsme, I don't want to discourage you, and I applaud you for thinking of ways to increase quality. But what you're suggesting would be a tremendous amount of work. We already don't have enough people to review FACs, and the kind of review you're discussing would ideally include subject-matter experts. If we were willing to pay people for these reviews, it might work, but otherwise it's hard to see what would attract volunteers who were not only willing but (crucially) able to do it.


 * Looking at an article I wrote, Female genital mutilation, this has been through GAN, peer review, FAC, an external review by an organization specializing in the area, and a second external view by an academic specializing in the area. It is maintained by two editors who are familiar with the issues and sourcing. If the proposed editorial board were to arrive at the page, what would they do? I can easily imagine a situation in which officious people arrive, don't know what they're doing, and succeed only in driving everyone crazy.


 * Remember that accuracy is not only about checking text-source integrity. It's also about knowing that the right sources have been used, and being able to spot whether important issues and sources are missing. How will you find a team of editors that includes a wide range of subject-matter experts, or is composed of people sufficiently well-educated to be able to bring themselves up to speed quickly, and who are willing to do the work for free? SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Funding

 * Or perhaps your idea is that the reviewers would be paid? I wonder whether the Foundation would give you an individual engagement grant to explore how something like this could be funded. SarahSV (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pinging. Jake, I don't expect you to reply here with a fully formed idea. I just want you to be aware of it, because it sounds as though it's up your street somewhat, in several ways.

Atsme has the idea to create a "Project Accuracy Editorial Review Board." This team of reviewers will check the accuracy of featured articles and will give them a seal of approval if they pass. Atsme wants this seal of approval to be something that would be high-quality enough to be recognized by governments, research bodies, etc.

I can't see this happening unless the reviewers are paid and include subject-matter experts. Might the Foundation give Atsme an IEG to explore whether it could be funded by a body other than the Foundation? It would solve the paid editing/COI problem: if reviewers are paid by an independent body, there is no COI. And it might be an area, because of your Wikipedia Library work, where you could think of organizations that might be willing to fund an editorial board. "WikiProject Accuracy, sponsored by" etc. SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "if reviewers are paid by an independent body, there is no COI", hmm I dont understand this reasoning. If they are paid by wikimedia what is the COI? If they are funded by an external body then it depends on the interests of that body. I think the debacle with the Belfer center that paid an editor in residence to edit (which turned out to edit about the centers research) shows the risk of that kind of an arrangement unless it is done with full transparency. Wikimedia Assesment of the Belfer center program, stating specifically that wikimedia will not in the future "endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now (thanks to below) that Atsme has written up the idea for IdeaLab, mentioning a budget of $90,000. See Grants:IdeaLab/Project Accuracy. SarahSV (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I meant that if editors are paid by a body independent of the topic (whether the Foundation or some other), there is no COI. My thinking is that Atsme could apply for a Foundation grant to explore how to attract independent sponsorship of WikiProject Accuracy.


 * On a separate note, what should be challenged is the idea that the Foundation will never pay for content. It strikes me as discriminatory: if your unpaid contribution to Wikimedia has been technical, one day you may be paid for it; if it has been writing, forget it. I understand that there may be constraints related to the Foundation not wanting to be a publisher, but there are indirect ways of funding things. SarahSV (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that some kind of compensation for writing and quality checking eventually will have to become part of the wikipedia model, afterall in the end you always get what you pay for. But I think the community has been pretty touchy about the subject in the past, and that unless Atsme pre-emptively takes that kind of opposition into account this idea (which I think has a lot of merit) is going nowhere except to the annals of wikidrama. There is a fundamental problem in having paid editors of any stripe: How will they be selected. This problem also applies to editors given special privileges to fact check articles on specific topics and hand out gold stars of approval. How will they be (s)elected?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Going off-topic, my idea for paid editing (this is going back a couple of years) was that the Foundation could act as a broker between (a) those wanting to employ editors and (b) established Wikipedians who wanted the work. Editors could add their names to a list, which would include their WP experience, real-life qualifications if relevant, etc. Standards would be high. A Foundation commiteee would hand out the work to the most suitable, and would take a percentage for its trouble. I've never tried to suggest this formally. The point was to try to create conditions for paid editing that avoided COI.


 * Back to Atsme's idea, I don't know what she has in mind re: payment, or what the $90,000 would be for. But I don't think we are going to get good reviewers for Project Accuracy without payment. We may get bad reviewers, but that would be worse than nothing. Once an article has reached FA, assuming the process worked properly, the people tending it are usually very knowledgeable about the topic. A new editor acting as a reviewer is therefore going to have to know what she's talking about, because accuracy is about so much more than checking text-source integrity. SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are other ways to get competent reviewers - specifically I have an idea on the idea lab about systematically trying to get academics to contribute peer reviews of FA quality articles (no pay involved, just like real academic peer review). I think the time is ripe for an effort to step up our game qualitywise, but I think it needs better groundwork than what has been the case here so far. It can still be remedied, by some due diligence, but it needs more clarity and more critical strategic thinking about how to get the community to accept it. One thing we know about the wikipedia community is that it hates few things more than major changes (unless they have been brought on board) and top-down control.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your idea a lot: Grants:IdeaLab/Getting Academic Reviewers. I'd love to see us try it with a small number of articles to see what differences the reviewers would suggest. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and, I was working on the Tier presentation below and just now read the above exchange. YES, YES!! It's exciting and motivational. I know we can make this work! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we may have strayed away from the intent and purpose of the proposed Editorial Review Board (or ER Committee or ER Team, whatever name is finally decided). In an effort to make sure we're all on the same page, I've provided the 3 Tier process I initially envisioned:
 * Tier 1 - the process begins with a list of FAs to be reviewed. The list includes FAs submitted to the ERB by project teams, individual authors and/or Project Accuracy coordinators.
 * Tier 2 - each submission will undergo review by the ERB. As stated earlier, members from various project teams will comprise the ERB and will alternate from time to time depending on the content of the submissions.  For example, if a medical article is submitted for review, the PA coordinators will utilize its medical editors for that particular review.  Hopefully, we will have a pool of at least 20 ERB members to draw from, and not unlike what The Wikipedia Library has done, PA will have a page introducing our ERB and their qualifications or credentials, something like this Journal has done.  The ERB's review and assessment will focus more on corroborating information with the cited sources to determine (1) accuracy, (2) reliability of the cited sources, and (3) quality of the overall presentation.  The ERB will not actually be editing anything. Once the members of the ERB have each completed their reviews, they will discuss their findings and reach a collaborative assessment that will be presented as a critique to the authors (editors) and/or project team if there is one.  The submission may very well pass the initial review and receive the gold seal, or it may need revision.  The critiques will be used by the authors to make the necessary revisions during a specified time frame - they may be simple revisions that can be done in a day, or it may require more research for better sources and take longer.  Reasons will vary.
 * Tier 3 - if an author requires further discussion about the assessment, the ERB may assign one or more of their members (ideally experts on the subject) to answer questions or help the author(s) with the necessary revisions. When that process is complete and the revisions have been made, the article can be submitted again beginning with the Tier 1 review.
 * I hope the above will help clarify and clear-up any misgivings. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, Atsme. All the review processes on Wikipedia suffer from having not enough volunteers, so any review proposal has to explain where the volunteers will come from. One way to attract good reviewers would be to pay them. Another way is along the lines Maunus suggests for academic review. How does WikiProject Accuracy propose to attract reviewers? SarahSV (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've actually considered a number of different ways but before I begin recruiting editors, I need to line-up 3 to 5 project coordinators - a think tank, if you will - experienced editors who have been through a couple of FA reviews, and/or several GA reviews and DYKs. I agree we should engage academics (perhaps grants?), experts and seasoned professionals to volunteer for the ERB but those individuals will come and go which is why I think our primary project coordinators may require some financial compensation (grant) because their work will be ongoing.  Our current project teams are essential and will provide a diverse pool of qualified individuals to draw from, and will hopefully encourage some of their lead editors to work with our project coordinators.  I think incentives are key - prizes, monetary rewards for reaching goals or winning contests (grant), recognition of quality achievements, etc.  Quality begets quality and I believe that once things are underway, the project will keep growing and attract the kind of team players we need to keep replenishing the ERB.  I believe that once we start the off-Wiki promotion (grant?) we'll see new editors joining in.  I also believe that once our current editors realize the effort they put into writing quality articles and getting them promoted won't end-up being destroyed by vandals and incompetence, and that's when we will start seeing results in editor retention.  I'm of the belief that the editors who represent the level of quality we need on the ERB will be looking closely at this project's commitment to quality, and that without some level of protection for the articles wearing the gold seal, we will not be able to achieve our goals.  Credibility & reliability = sustainability, so if the goal is to keep the encyclopedia growing in the right direction, I think we should pay closer attention to the needs of our readers.  An unreliable encyclopedia fails the needs of its readers, and without readers we have nothing.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Atsme. There's a lot packed into your post. So you do intend to pay the project coordinators? That's good, but where would the money come from?

Second question: looking at FGM as an example, let's suppose you find academic specialists willing to review the article without payment and write a report, and everything is fine so it gets an accuracy seal. Six months later, I have to update all the prevalence figures (featured articles have to be kept updated). What becomes of your accuracy seal? It seems to me that you would have to introduce a new level of protection so that only certain editors could make changes without the seal being removed; otherwise all that academic scrutiny has gone to waste. But that's the kind of thing the community would have difficulty with. SarahSV (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Break

 * thanks for your comments. They are extremely helpful and I appreciate your thought of bringing Jake attention to this discussion. Although Jake is unlikely to respond to your questions asap. It seems he's very busy lately. That being said, based on my experience with the Wikimedia Foundation and The Wikipedia Library, I don't think we have recorded a similar case where a project like this is funded either by independent organization or the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm a member of the individual engagement grant committee. We do not support the Wikimedia Foundation in funding projects where individuals will create content, edit or review contents as that comes very close to paid editing. Instead, we fund projects that engage or motivate groups of people in editing or adding content to Wikimedia projects, such as editathons, photo walks, or contests. Thus "WikiProject Accuracy" is out of scope for IEG funding guidelines. That being said, I have read through series of comments by amazing members of the community on the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia and normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review process before they are visible on the main space. Improper review is why most Wikipedia articles contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text. If there is a way this can be addressed, why not? Peer review have been funded in the past but as Wikipedia's popularity skyrocketed, revenues to fund the project stalled and Jimmy decided to discontinue funding for a salaried editor-in-chief in December 2001, partly as a result of the internet economy at that time, and his vision to established an openly editable encyclopedia. Thus, the idea of funding content creation, editing and editorial review was aborted in December 2001. Shortly after Jimmy stop paying Larry Sanger who was the editor-in-chief, he resigned and the Nupedia website at nupedia.com was shut down on September 26, 2003, barely 3 months after the Wikimedia Foundation was established. Since December 2001, it has become common practice for the WMF not to fund direct content creation, editing and peer review. This is a major problem with the idea of establishing "Wikiproject Accuracy" which rely on paying editorial board members to function. Wikimedia Foundation cannot fund projects where individuals will create content, edit or review article as that comes very close to paid editing. Instead, the foundation fund projects that engage or motivate groups of people in editing or adding content to Wikimedia projects, such as editathons, photo walks, or contests. However, if the appointed or elected members of the Editorial Review Board of the project accuracy are willing to serve voluntarily, without pay, I do not see anything wrong with that. Betty and her team of coordinators can start a pilot, and Wiki project medicine might be a good start, as Stephen Philbrick rightfully suggested, basically as a result of the importance and sensitivity of that subject matter and partly because of the strong initiatives of editors in that area. Wikiproject Accuracy seem like a level beyond FA. Thus I don’t think anyone would reasonably expects that all articles in the English Wikipedia will immediately or eventually become FA talk less of RAAFA. I'm silently saying that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any meaningfully significant proportion of all articles will reach the level of RAAFA. Thus, I don't see "WikiProject Accuracy" becoming a major problem. I think Betty Wills (User:Atsme) should go ahead with the pilot project while we keep our fingers crossed that everyhting will work out as planned. Let's see what will come out of this in the next few months. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these thoughts Olatunde. The main problem in my area (philosophy of language) is that there are very few specialists working in Wikipedia in that area, and most of the articles are poor or corrupted. I have tried to recruit fellow academics in the past, but it is unlikely in my view that this will be possible without some kind of incentive. Academia is fiercely competitive and they spend most of their time getting work into peer reviewed publications.
 * You say " the idea of funding content creation, editing and editorial review was aborted in December 2001". That's true, but the reason was lack of budget, and we are talking about a budget which then was a tiny fraction (tens of thousands) of what exists now (tens of millions). The general public contribute to Wikipedia on the understanding that it is to support the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Why can't some of that vast budget be diverted into what really matters, namely high quality content and material that the public can rely on? Peter Damian (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also what is this, and this? Can I respectfully ask if you have any authority from the WMF to be making these pronouncements above? Peter Damian (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See also this sockpuppet investigation, and this afd. " I checked the so-called references of the first instance of the article. None of the refs held. They either pointed to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles." "unnotable professor-wannabe with big ego" Peter Damian (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These are typical examples of what we normally experience when new editors join Wikipedia especially those that aren't the product of Wikipedia Workshops/training. Some of this editors later get it right and they remain a long-term and valuable editors. Wikipedia is complex, and it's often difficult for new editors to understand how the encyclopedia works. They have no idea of the basic policies and guideline, WP:GNG, WP:CV, WP:BLP and what count as WP:RS. Some of them have not even heard of the word "Sock puppetry" and any other related terms. They usually think Wikipedia is like a social media where anything goes. Hence, they get themselves in all manners of troubles and some of them get blocked or Ban. What you pointed out is the oldest history of a now experienced editor who has now grown to be an asset to the community. The then, new editor is now the Manager of Wikipedia Education Program in Nigeria and a major contributor of Nigeria related articles to Wikipedia. In addition to creating over 500 articles on the English wikipedia with GA and bunch of DYK, he has recruited several Wikimedians for the Wikimedia Foundation through series of workshops/training organized by him in Nigeria, a country where there are low number of people contributing to Wikimedia Project. He served as member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee and was twice a grantee. Just to cut the entire story short. If I may ask you (1)The diff you pointed out, does it seem like that of an experienced editor or that of a newbie who does not even know how Wikipedia works? (2) how is it relevant to "Wikiproject Accuracy"? Peter, let's focus on improving Wikipedia and that's all that matters to everyone. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am uncomfortable that you refer to 'this editor' in the third person, rather than first person. You have sidestepped the issue that you were using a sock farm to promote an article about yourself. That seems to me basically dishonest, rather than lack of knowledge of policies. You also haven't answered my question about your authority. You opened your post saying " I appreciate your thought of bringing Jake attention to this discussion. Although Jake is unlikely to respond to your questions asap. It seems he's very busy lately. " This sounds to me as though you are taking on a delegated authority from Jake. Do you have his authority?Peter Damian (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't take this personal. I'm not taking on a delegated authority from Jake. I have email Jake few days ago on different issue but he's yet to respond which give me an impression that he's unlikely to respond to the above questions asap. Nothing more! I don't see any thing wrong in saying "I appreciate your thought of bringing Jake attention to this discussion. Although Jake is unlikely to respond to your questions asap. It seems he's very busy lately. " If you feel its wrong, then I'm sorry for using the wrong words. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On your question about how this relates to 'Project Accuracy', well, accuracy is largely about respect for the truth. Peter Damian (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Further noting that, according to one of the sock reports, you were excusing these edits as done by your son when he got hold of your mobile. Elsewhere you were said to have claimed that your computer had a virus, so you had to use an internet café, or something like that. If so, this is not about failure to understand policy, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your motive behind this? This seem like an harassment to me. If you have anything against me, I respectfully request that you leave a message on my talk page and we will address it there. This talk page is meant for WikiProject Accuracy and not a place to bring up dead issues. I won't respond to this again. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah right 'harassment'. This is following a very predictable pattern. You know about the User:Wifione case, yes?  Peter Damian (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Further Thoughts by Maunus

 * 1) The project seeks to create a level of article quality that is above and beyond that established by FA (which currently is mostly about MOS enforcement). I think this is good and necessary. However, FA is a community wide process operating under the normal principles of consensus and participation. How does the project propose that it even get the ability to place a "gold star of accuracy" on the article's top (as opposed to e.g. a project quality banner as other projects do) without first having full community wide support for the project (which would require community wide announcement, and probably discussion and !voting at the Villagepump)?  Why didn't te project start by assessing community interest before creating itself?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The project seeks to create teams of selected accuracy checkers. How will these teams be established? Who will choose go goes on the teams? Who will be excluded from the teams? Wikipedia is based around open volunteer editing, not exclusive groups of editors with special privileges (unless we count administrators who go through a voting process, will the ERB members be elected through a vote and consensus as we do with admins?).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) How will the project and its editorial teams interact with other participants? How will conflicts and disagreements between editorial teams and team menbers and other editors be handled? What happens when there is disagreement about which source is more accurate? Or about what a given source actually states?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) There is a 90,000 dollar grant request at the Grant Idea Lab. What would this money be spent on if the project is supposed to operate like any other wikiproject with volunteer edting?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) How is it expected that the project will affect editor recruitment and retention? Considering especially that editors who are not editorial board members, will have a new level of "authority" to tell them that their contributions need to be reverted or that the content they contribute is problematic? How will the project make sure that it does not come across as dictatorial clique or cabal? How would it provide additional motivation for new editors to contribute and for non-editorial board editors to continue to contribute? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See the above Tier 1, 2, & 3. Thank you so much,  and  for your input above.  I don't know how to answer all of your questions without writing a full length proposal but before I can even begin to do that, I need team players.  That's what I've been trying to accomplish and it appears that I've finally attracted the kind of attention this project needs.  I'd like to get 3 to 5 Project Accuracy coordinators lined up who are willing to make the commitment and collaborate with me to get this project off the ground.  Sign-up is open.  The project is in its embryonic stages of development so it's wide open as well.  It's a giant oyster with a pearl in the making. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would sign up if I had a better idea about what the project actually is about. That would require that you at least try to address some of the concerns I express. Otherwise I dont know what I am signing up for or how to justify the projects existence to others. Clearly you cannot achieve the full scope of what you say you hope to achieve with 3 to 5 editors - you need community wide support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am interested but having tried and failed to achieve similar things before, I would like to understand the background better. For one thing, I have a concern about what was talking about. I asked him earlier but got no answer. Peter Damian (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * [edit] Actually he has just replied (see his talk page). I would still like to understand his concerns better, though. He mentioned some issues about interaction, for example. Peter Damian (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that recent events and what some might consider the catalyst for certain criticisms that have been raised here need closer scrutiny. We can start with Jytdog's unfounded PAs against me, and the questioning and criticisms by Maunus, and the attempts to make Project Accuracy look like a bad idea. I'll begin with a chronology of how this idea was born and what eventually resulted: Is this how WP operates? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Project Accuracy was created on February 6, 2016. See my first discussion at the top of this TP where I initially had contacted  and discussed the project with him. I also posted on  TP, asking for advice, help and input.  I continued with the plan, attempting to get feedback to help me work through the details. No one was willing to help me.  I was on my own and not because I wanted to be.
 * I again proposed the idea during WMF's Reach campaign which began either late February or early March;
 * I went to the IdeaLab on March 15, 2016 and started working on a proposal for the idea to WMF. on March 15, 2016. Little did I know that  had already submitted a grant proposal of his own on February 29, 2016, nearly a month after Project Accuracy was born.
 * The Maunus grant is very similar in many ways to Project Accuracy, only he calls it "peer review" for GAs and FAs. My discussion with Doc James above specifically states: The articles we will be working on initially will be GAs and FAs that have already passed scrutiny by qualified reviewers. You will also find other areas in his grant that closely mirror Project Accuracy with minor changes, but the core of his grant follows in line with Project Accuracy.  Coincidence?
 * Where is the criticism for his proposal and grant as there has been for Project Accuracy?
 * I now see that just endorsed the grant proposed by Maunus.
 * Please note that my idea does not involve a grant, but in someways it is very similar to yours. (which is why I was surprised that you would need 90,000 dollars for something that could easily be done for free through normal volunteer work) Except that in my idea outside academics would be only giving advice for how to improve the articles which will then be used or ignored subject to normal editing procedures.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're implying, Atsme, but Maunus's idea is quite different. You're proposing a new team of Wikipedians who will act as fact-checkers. Maunus is suggesting ways in which the academic community could become involved in reviewing, and he outlines how to offer them incentives. He wrote a paper last year that discussed the importance of academic input. SarahSV (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any concerns I may have caused, and will start by saying I struck my comments at the grant app proposed by Maunus because I have chosen to take the high road despite the following, . It really doesn't matter which version of the idea is supported as long as it benefits the project. I just wanted to make it clear that the criticisms expressed here regarding some of the very same procedures for both are not critically viewed in any of the discussions for his proposed grant.  I find that rather curious not to mention the fact that Maunus said, "Personally I would be happy with an Editorial Review Board as long as I was on it myself, but if I were not then I would very probably not." (see preceding diffs)
 * The aims of Maunus' proposed project:
 * Encourage academic topic experts to contribute knowledge to Wikipedia articles <---how is that different from what WP is doing now or what Project Accuracy has proposed by coordinating project teams like Project Med to become members of the ERB?
 * By soliciting peer reviews directly <how is that different from Project Accuracy promotional efforts for outreach to academia for input?
 * By having open invitations to topic experts to provide reviews <possibly different because with Project Accuracy, we will have WPA coordinators helping to ensure that will happen, not just having open invitations, hoping for the best
 * By providing motivation in the form of a kind of recognition for contributing reviews that academics can add to their CVs <---incentives and recognition are key to Project Accuracy
 * Improve the review process and thereby the quality of our best articles<---do I really need to respond to this?
 * I'll just leave it at that, and will continue pursuing what I feel is a very worthy endeavor. In the interim, let's all be happy and keep focusing on getting our articles promoted to FA. We all want the same results - recognition of our hard work, accuracy and reliability in the information we disseminate, and credibility for WP.  I will support whatever works best whether it is Project Accuracy, or the process proposed by Maunus even though it is just as incomplete as Project Accuracy.  I am confident enough in the direction I have proposed for WPA and will continue to remain optimistic that more editors will become involved rather than splintering off with their own grant proposals.  Perhaps I was a bit naive in thinking that WP would be more welcoming and open to collaboration on new ideas, so perhaps that is another area of the project I can focus on, and possibly come up with ways to resolve those issues as well - only next time, I'll be a lot more cautious about how I announce it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should strike some more, because my idea does not involve any kind of grant request. There are some similarities in our ideas, but mine is very different because it is not an attempt to create a group of wikipedia users that can give articles a higher level seal of approval, but about actively asking academics to contribute peer reviews for free (just as they do for academic journals). It doesnt involve a new level of "gold star", it doesnt involve an editorial board (just the standard editing processes) and it doesnt involve a grant. All in all my idea is much more cautious than yours because it is at a much smaller scale, and involves only already existing processes, and does not request funding - I hope that this makes it more likely to be accepted by the community, but I may be mistaken on that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)more

Hmmm...then why present it in the WM Grants:IdeaLab. I initially had some inkling that any project the caliber of Project Accuracy would probably require a grant of some kind, but then my original proposal also included some guesstimates for establishing a Dallas/Ft. Worth Chapter of WP that would be supported in-kind by academia like TCU, UTA, SMU, maybe Baylor, and a few local community colleges. I can certainly understand the need to exercise caution, but I also understand that Project Accuracy was designed to have some bite to it, otherwise we'd still be sitting slap-dab in the middle of status quo burning rubber without going anywhere. I'm more of a "git 'r done" kinda gal after scouting a location and finding it clear of gotchas. Sign-up is probably still lagging here because the project is in development, and editors want to know beforehand if it's going to have some bite to it or if we'll end-up being just another style of FA review; the latter being a deal breaker for me. I will say that I've received some positive input and encouragement from WM staff regarding this project. The plan is to continue recruiting, make whatever modifications are deemed necessary so that it will fly when all the off-Wiki promotions are underway. The goal is still focused on encouraging and rewarding quality while enhancing WP's image as a reliable source. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Responded to the Idea Lab campaign to make 100 ideas for improving wikipedia within a month, I didnt realize that the URL would include the word "grant" in its title. There are two button on the bottom of the page that says "Expand into a grant", I haven't clicked any of those buttons. I dont foresee any costs associated with carrying out the idea I propose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Atsme, just to clarify one point. When Maunus wrote: "Personally I would be happy with an Editorial Review Board as long as I was on it myself, but if I were not then I would very probably not," I believe he was referring to the sense of exclusion this proposal would cause among those not part of the board. SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was meant to illustrate that forming elites and hierarchical structures are always a great and pleasant idea for those who get to be on top. For those who dont, not so much.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , my intent was not to disparage the idea presented for development at Grants:IdeaLab, rather it was to defend the intent and purpose of Project Accuracy. My concerns arose as a result of his post asking for my proposal to be denied funding.  You are certainly free to interpret it however you will but my knee-jerk reaction was that it was obstructionist in nature.  We are all entitled to an opinion - Maunus to his, me to mine, you to yours without undue criticism. I struck my earlier comments because they reflected my knee-jerk reaction, and I try not to respond without thinking things through, at least overnight.  I apologize, but it doesn't change the fact that I disagree with Maunus' criticism of Project Accuracy (WPA), which appears to be based in POV speculation.  WPA is not about "forming elites and hierarchical structures" and I'm not sure where that even originated.  It couldn't be further from the truth.  WPA is about forming a qualified review board by utilizing WP's own talent pool in combination with off-wiki resources.   has made a very plausible suggestion in that regard as well.  Furthermore, as I explained previously, the grant I was initially considering included the establishment of a Dallas-Ft. Worth Chapter of WP (no longer part of it), along with compensation for WAP's primary project coordinators (PPC), and monetary awards which will create incentive and be a driving force in getting editors to work toward building quality content - the kind of articles that can be promoted to FA, and further promoted to reviewed and accepted by an ERB that will be duly noted on the article.  I'm talking about creating a pool of 100+/- qualified reviewers both on and off WP.  The WPA review process will help create a newer and better image of WP as a reliable source.  It will comprise academics and other credentialed experts and professionals with real world experience, such as USF&WS biologists, ERB members of notable scientific and medical journals, technical writers who have experience interpreting technical jargon, legalese, medical terms, etc. who can translate it so the general populace can understand.  The ERB will be a balanced mix of reviewers.  Believe it or not, I actually do have decades of experience with nonprofits, building projects from scratch, and working with public dissemination, but the latter is highly dependent upon input from qualified experts for accuracy.  The WPA proposal is being guided by decades of experience, even though I have only 4 yrs. worth of WP experience.  I do know how to delegate and recruit qualified individuals.  No, I'm not perfect - no one is - but I am confident that WPA is good for the encyclopedia. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We certainly realized that you are convinced that WPA is good for the encyclopedia, my critique is all about how you are going to convince the rest of the community (without which WPA is not going to happen). If you are serious in wanting to go forward with the project, you really ought to prepare yourself for the ineviable speculaitons and worst case scenarios which the questions that I pose reflect, otherwise you are highly likely to run into a wall. Please note that several people who have commented, after being invited by you, agree that my concerns about how the community will respond are real. It seems like a very shortsighted approach not to take those concerns seriously. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what has gone on about the grant or funding, but I do agree with Maunus about the community here. For myself, I reacted negatively to having myself declared as some sort of expert with higher standing as an editor in certain situations. And I think that the community as a whole will feel even more negatively about that than I did. It's very difficult to get community consensus for anything new. And no project like this can actually come into existence without community support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Points taken and much appreciated. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename?
Since every Wikiproject and pretty much every Wikipedian has a role in achieving accuracy, I suggest you consider renaming this project to something like "Accredited review" or "Accredited editor". I'd then decouple it from the existing article assessment process, or rather establish the relationship. One that I think might work would be to treat the two as orthoganal, and to subdivide by academic discipline. So an article on a hill fort might be checked by a professor of archaeology as being correct, but still remain by Wikipedia standards a 12 line stub. Whilst an article on a particular South American mountain might have different sections/aspects checked by a botanist, a glaciologist and a professor of pre columbian theology; but with whole sections on geology, fauna and mountaineering written by people only known by their Wikipedia pseudonyms. The other test this project needs to pass is the Citizendium issue. What do you understand as the main failings of that project and how do you intend to avoid repeating their mistakes?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's being considered and I hope you're considering joining WPA as one of the 5 seven (7) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC) primary project coordinators.  Please?  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧19:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Some more comments
Atsme very kindly asked me at my user talk to become a participant. I've been reading the discussions, and it wasn't clear to me where I might post in other talk sections, so I am somewhat arbitrarily starting a new section here. Unfortunately, I'm going to say "no thank you" to the invitation. I've read what other editors have said above, and I think that there have been a lot of good observations about potential pitfalls, so I'll try not to repeat what others have already said, but I do have serious doubts that this project will ultimately gain acceptance by the editing community.

In real life, I would be someone who would be considered an "expert" on neuroscience. But in all my editing as part of the neuro WikiProject, I have taken a very strong position that my real life identity is beside the point and irrelevant (except on some pages where I choose not to edit because of COI) – and I know personally some other neuro editors who do the same thing. I like to say that if a high school student makes a good edit, I'll support it, and if a Nobel laureate makes a bad edit, I'll revert it. I'm editorially allergic to declaring some Wikipedia editors as experts, and I don't want to declare myself as one. And I'm pretty sure that the community as a whole will reject anything that sets some editors up as experts. It is indeed a good point that Citizendium failed.

I've also been involved in outreach to get more academic experts to become editors, and it's been a mixed bag, because most experts are focused on their own research and would love to use Wikipedia to promote it, COI be damned, and I have a feeling that a lot of them would approach accuracy review in that way.

And I agree with others also that it would be a lot of work. And I frankly don't feel like it. I came to Wikipedia as a hobby, not as an extension of my work life. This sounds like a chore that I just don't feel like doing.

So here is yet another suggestion for you to think about. Stop approaching it as a "project" that is about "review". Instead, think about working up something sort of like a "noticeboard", where anyone can ask for an "accuracy check" of a page. It would be sort of like requesting a GA or FA review, but it would be more like fact-checking and due-weight-checking. In fact, it would be even more like when someone asks WP:COPYEDITORS to go over a page, except that it would be about substance instead of gnoming. Anyone could help out with the checking, and no version would be fixed in time. That's less ambitious, but more in the spirit of what Wikipedia is and is not. Any page could be checked, made a bit better in the process, and then checked and improved again at some later time. It would all be part of a never-ending editing process. But it would add one more resource devoted to fixing the problem of content accuracy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you input, Tryp. I read you loud and clear on the "hobby" aspect of editing.  As I read over and over all the comments and some of the questions asked, I think it's probably time to repost some of the things I've already said in the event they were overlooked, so I'll create a break and start again. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Break 2
Posting again what I posted above explaining the intended review process: (none of which is carved in stone, or mandatory). The promotion process will remain voluntary but I will also add that our primary project coordinators (5 or 7 total PPCs) can also nominate FA candidates for promotion, and they can continue managing/overseeing their own projects if they have one. The PPCs are not expected to also be members of the ERB, but they can be if they so desire; however, their primary job will be to oversee the review process, not partake in it. PPPs will help coordinate FA submissions and help assemble the appropriate ERB by drawing from our pool of members; therefore, the reviews will be contingent upon the submissions. I believe we will be able to build a large pool of competent quality reviewers to draw from - some of whom will want their photograph accompanying their short bio, and some who will be accredited privately but can remain anonymous if they so desire. I envision a diverse mix of reviewers which I've explained a bit more in detail further below. Jiminy Cricket, is no one able to read my mind? 😝

Having a healthy number of experts in their field would be ideal, but again, not mandatory and probably not feasible in some situations. That's where reward and recognition comes into play as I've mentioned often enough. Also, equally as important as having expert reviewers is having reviewers who can properly process information and disseminate it to the general public. That's why each submission (or group of submissions) will be performed by a balanced mix of qualified experts/professionals/writers. I invited to be one of the PPCs because he is an incredible organizer, a prolific writer, and is not only an experienced project team leader but a great one in my opinion, and I could go on and on. In fact, WP has an incredible amount of talent that can be utilized to help accomplish so many of this project's goals. I just know we can do this and do it well, and I'm ready to go door-to-door to help make it happen. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Something that just occurred to me to add is that, although I'm claiming to be a neuroscientist in real life, for all anyone knows, I'm actually a fish who can type. And I'm not willing to identify myself for the kinds of purposes here, even offline. So privacy is another issue, although as you say, there will be other people who want their photos posted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ecyclopedia britannica vs wikipedia by nature, 2015/2016
here a recent example of comparison, finding no big difference by doing peer review between wikipedia and encyclopaedia britannica: --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
 * http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf
 * Just wanted to emphasize one slightly overlooked fact (my bold and underline) - "An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature--the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science," the journal wrote, "suggests that such high-profile examples (like the Seigenthaler and Curry situations) are the exception rather than the rule." I'll repeat the part I'm asking you to consider...peer review to compare.  Need I say more?  Now let's look at the decline in readership that was the catalyst for WP Outreach campaign and the fact that there is growing reluctance in the realm of academia regarding use of WP as a reliable source.  This project (WPA) is designed to be the beginning stages of changing academia's and the public's perception of WP unreliability.  Why?  Because WPA uses an ERB (aka peer review) to further promote its FAs.  It's the beginning.  Thank you for the input, Thurner. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Protecting pages is owning pages
One concept that is problematic with this project is blocking editors who "attempt to update it without the initial stringent review that was required to promote it." This would suggest that this project and its experts would permanently control a page they had reviewed and approved, with any further outside input subject to their approval. This will force other editors off these pages, risk the biases of your board becoming entrenched (a "who watches the watchers" situation, which affected Citizendium) and risk that the articles go stale as the board will not want to constantly revisit articles in perpetuity when there are so many unreviewed articles. Do read up on what happened to both Citizendium and Nupedia, similarly bureaucratic and expert-driven approaches to approving content (spoiler: they failed). Two ideas have been suggested above that may be preferable and I want to reiterate them: 1) have a link on the talk page and from a top icon to the approved version - I am sure such "stable versions" have been suggested before; 2) use semi-protect and/or pending changes to help keep the articles stable but do not require all edits to be approved. Fences &amp;  Windows  10:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts, . There is ongoing discussion at the IdeaLab regarding the issues you presented, so when you have a little extra time, I would very much appreciate your thoughts regarding the following  exchange with  wherein it addresses updates to promoted articles, keeping in mind that our project begins with FAs:
 * SV's Question: FAs have to be kept up to date. That's especially true with science. What happens to the accuracy seal when the FA writers update the article?


 * Answer:


 * To begin, in order for any accuracy/fact-checking/reliability status to work, the reviewed and approved articles must have a level of protection to prevent vandalism and incompetence from destroying their reliability. Updates can certainly be made but with a slight detour that involves a review process not too unlike what we currently have in place, such as pending changes review but a beefed-up version of it. We also have "stewardship" at the project team level and watchlists that are maintained by bots and individual article creators/authors. Perhaps code can be written that specifically targets the gold sealed articles and affords them the type of protection we need while maintaining the anyone can edit policy.
 * If a preliminary review determines the proposed changes pass the acid test (for lack of a better term), a review of the proposed change(s) by an ERB will occur. The majority of those articles will not require the same time and effort as the original review so I don't see it creating a problem. Also, keep in mind that previously reviewed and approved articles are a level above our customary FA reviews, a substantial number of which did not receive the equivalency of a fact-checking review as will be performed by verified experts comprising our ERB. Granted, the entire process will be a collaborative effort dependent in part on the combined efforts of individual project teams and the PPC. One could liken it to an expanded version of Project Med but with an extra layer of reassurances.
 * Keeping in mind that the project is still in its initial stages of development, it remains open to ideas for improvement. What I see as the hardest obstacle to overcome is moving beyond status quo which appears to have stagnated despite WMFs concerns over the substantial drop in readership and editor retention. (copy of my 04/05/2016 statement at Idea Lab) <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of formalized expert peer review, what I don't like is creating a new class of super-editor/curator and a new type of protected page, i.e. giving those reviews a special status beyond that of other editors' efforts. The focus on FAs is also a mistake - those articles already receive significant attention and fact-checking during their various reviews and are probably least in need of improvement and certification: your project would ride on their coattails. I think you would be better off incorporating a peer review process into the existing processes and article grades we have. The idea of a new version of pending changes (presumably restricting the ability to approve edits to the editorial review board) is unlikely to succeed, considering the opposition that met pending changes/flagged revisions and the opposition to "elites" at Wikipedia. I don't see how this project will help editor retention, as by nature it is exclusionary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What good will it do to have a formal peer review if the reviewed article remains readily available to the whims of vandals and incompetence? I'm curious - why did you mention the project would ride on the coattails of FAs?  Isn't that the whole concept of open editing; i.e., to improve articles?  All editors ride on the coattails of another.  That's how many FAs came to be- a stub was expanded to GA, the GA was expanded and improved, then promoted to FA.  Why stop there?  Sorry, but I fail to see why Project Accuracy would not improve reach and editor retention.  This project may very well not succeed but it won't be because it doesn't have merit.  I'm satisfied that I at least tried to improve upon a faulty process.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the project will necessarily damage editor recruitment and retention. The question is whether it is worth it. For the record I agree with Fences and Windows, that it is a better idea to make the extra peer review simply a part of the normal FA review process, in effect raising the bar for FA instead of creating an FA+.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the project will necessarily damage editor recruitment and retention. The question is whether it is worth it. For the record I agree with Fences and Windows, that it is a better idea to make the extra peer review simply a part of the normal FA review process, in effect raising the bar for FA instead of creating an FA+.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. How could it possibly damage the project any more than FA promotion damages it, or the proposed review process that you're supporting? Qualified reviews with verifiable quality reviewers who form a pool to draw from to confirm an article's accuracy is not going to damage the project. In fact, it could only lend more credibility to the encyclopedia as a RS. If I understand you correctly - and it boggles my mind - you're saying accuracy confirmed by qualified reviewers is the problem, and that is unimaginable to me. If we're striving for and can accomplish accuracy in a manner that is verifiable, such a process could only be a detriment to POV advocacies, vandals and the incompetent. If you're counting them as a loss in editor retention, then I agree but at the same time, by eliminating the time sinks we are encouraging and rewarding many more qualified GF editors who understand the value of accuracy and quality in our articles. It's hard to imagine any GF editor not wanting to participate on a Project Team that is striving for accuracy because they see it as damaging to the project. Show me the stats. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)