FT2 wrote: > If we did try, then a WikiJournal would be a classic case where we could do > the job right using present tools, and achieve something that most similar > sites won't do. Try this: > > > > - Anyone can post up a paper, in usual academic form (ie authors info > would be required, formal citations, and so on). > - The draft is held back using Flagged Revisions, similar to Wikinews' > configuration, at the point of writing. > - Other users then discuss and critique and identify as a peer review > process, issues to be addressed (NPOV would probably fail as a criteria > since many good papers are written from the view of one specific author or > team; we'd need some more suitable criterion here). Considering that competent refereeing is the practical bottleneck for a peer-review-led system: perhaps the point can be sharpened. If wiki-style collaborative refereeing is something that will work, then this concept is plausible and the WMF should at least take an interest. If not - if backlogs and pickiness will predominate over sensible closures of a revision - then the idea is worth relatively less.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l