[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug-gnupedia] Re: A Detailed Proposal - Mk I

From: Simon Cross
Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] Re: A Detailed Proposal - Mk I
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:15:18 +0200 (SAST)


In response to my proposal Bryce Harrington wrote:

> Consider: I could be judged an "master" on spacecraft propulsion
> systems, but only a "journeyman" for spacecraft communciation systems.
> Let's say for some very strange reason, someone actually values my
> reviewing skills and includes me in his search criteria, since he
> wants only the best of the best (stuff he can base multi-million
> dollar decisions on).  Now, you can be sure the propulsion articles
> I've signed off on are good, but he's also going to get a bunch of
> inane articles on communications that I thought were ok, but in truth
> are just so much pseudo-science.

I think adding categories for reviewers would unnecessarily complicated
matters.  My hope is that reviewers will organise themselves into teams
for specific subjects.  Thus we could have reviewers who are members of
the GNUPedia-Science review team, and you could choose this review team
when you searched for science subjects.  If you were doing a search on a
historical subject subject then you could search articles reviewed by the
GNUPedia-History team.

Perhaps a case could be made for review teams to be able to group
together.  Thus there could be a GNUPedia-All review team, which has as
sub-teams GNUPedia-Science, GNUPedia-History, and so on.

Bryce also mentioned a few other issues:

- Submission of article packages (tar balls):  The problem with submitting
tar balls is checking the digital signatures.  If too much manipulation of
the original submission has to be done, then clients will not be able to
check the digital signatures on the articles they read.  I do think the
ability to package a bundle of different media into unified article would
be very useful though.  Maybe we can find away to make this work.

- Getting reviewers:  My proposal has a kind of "Catch 22" problem
inherent in it.  How do we get reviewers when we have no articles, and how
do we get articles when we have no reviewers?  The solution to the
conundrum is that articles do not need any reviewers to be submitted.  I
stated in my proposal that authors would be responsible for the review of
their own articles.  It is, however, possible for reviews to be added
without the author.  Thus when the GNUPedia review teams get up and
running they can go around reviewing and approving articles.  We will need
to iron out the details of allowing people other than the author(s) to
organise reviews.

Ping!  Back to work.  Bryce: Thanks for the comments.


--- Imagine there's no heaven.  It's easy if you try.  
    No hell below us.  Above us only sky.
                           John Lennon, Imagine.  ---

[ email:        address@hidden
  tel:  (c) 4979 486 380        (w) 4072 056 (120)
  Information reversed to foil spambots ]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]