Wikipedia talk:Expert review

I hate this
Whomever is behind this seems to have forgotten something: Wikipedia relies on reliable published sources, not expert personal ones. A project like this, if active, is sure to bring about some self-important expert from academia who wants to add or remove content in contradiction to source materials. The values and goals of academic experts in a field are in direct contradiction to ours. Experts expect to be paid, and they expect to have complete control over their work, as well as named authorship rights. I for one will not be deferring constantly to some nosy and policy-ignorant academic when writing our articles. Of course, I'm of the firm belief (having given talks on Wikipedia to college professors personally) that this will not draw the kind of interest needed from experts to make it live. Wikipedia has been successful to date based on dedicated volunteers, not elitist experts. Van Tucky 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate this too. This is so not-wiki. Am I 10 years in the past or what? Nowadays, every reader is a "reviewer", and - guess what - instead of writing some ego-pumping prose, they actually fix problems with the article immediately. Isn't the wiki technology magical? And this works in practice, too. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) If the reviews are actually used to fix articles later, then this proposal violates WP:Consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted.
 * However, this proposal does not explicitly state that. In the current form assumes that the reviews... hmmm... just lay unused here, off-topic in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia namespace is for information about the Wikipedia itself), apparently just wasting the disk space. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I love this
I've been willing to propose such process. I was glad that someone already did it (even though it didn't kick off). What surprises me in the previous post, is Wikipedians' arrogance. While I cannot but admire their immense work that resulted in this superb website, they tend to forget that most Wikipedian writing an article are not professional, academics or scholars in its respective field. Doing some hobby-research cannot supplement years of experience. What VanTucky and Kubanczyk failed to grasp from this proposal is that it does not provide a new position or status in Wikipedia which allows expert to override community consensus, but it should provide a framework for Wikipedia to attract more External Peer Review (which by looking at the editors' responses, it seems to be a very welcomed contribution to Wikipedia). What this framework should constitute of should be discussed lenghtly in this page. It's a shame that this process didn't have the minimum amount of discussion before being rejected. Eklipse (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification needed. Sorry for being arrogant. I would like to remind that you can do it at any time. The proposal, the guideline, the policy is the last thing you need per WP:PG or WP:IAR - act first, document later. Still, I don't understand your motivations or arguments. They are not from my world. At this point I suppose that every expert is free to (1) fix an article in place, and (2) use the article's talk page for reviews (or opinions, or discussions). And they actually do it. Wikipedia is a permanent peer review itself. Could you provide the details on the possible improvement of Wikipedia by the proposed "framework", preferably with real-life examples? What is the purpose of the reviews once they are created? Do any other encyclopedias have experts creating the reviews on the individual articles? How the proposed scheme will guarantee the experts "with years of experience", because I'm sure for 1 expert you will have to filter out 999 arrogant wanna-be's? --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Most wiki editors hate experts with a passion and then wonder why Wikipedia doesn't get the confidence that is deserved. SOMETHING needs to be done to address the fact that many people still think that Wikipedia isn't reliable.  Sometimes I think that wikipedians live in their own world detached from the viewpoints of those outside wikipedia. Go to google news right now and look at what people in the real world are saying about wikipedia.  I know many people don't care about WP's authority and reliability, but I would like WP to be something more.  The experts-can-contribute-too argument completely misses the point:  an article written by 1000 amateurs will never have the authority written by 12 experts.  Just face the facts, it's the way it is, you will NEVER be able to combat the it's-written-by-a-bunch-of-amateurs crowd, no matter how sound your arguments are.  This bias persists and, provides a perfect explanation for why Wikipedia has plateaued and will never "Crush Britannica" in the next 2 years like Wales predicted.  Everyone will always view Wikipedia as a flawed project.  Now, if you could do some set of freezing a separate set of articles, and have the contributors vote on which expert they think should look it over on behalf of the world, and actually address the (however irrational) criticisms of those outside Wikipedia rather than be so resistant to change (believing, like Kubanczyk does that business as usual will actually accomplish even the most modest goals set by Wales), then maybe Wiki will start to progress again.

--129.49.7.137 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Still an active proposal?
Just trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia proposals so wondering if this is still an active proposal or if it can be tagged otherwise? Hiding T 09:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)