This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) Is the use of "dismissive deletion" without any replacement based on mere perfunctory reference to general WP policies a problem?
- Wikipedia talk:Image use policy Should we expand the WP:Image use policy to clarify when model releases are needed for images of identifiable persons in private places?
- Wikipedia talk:Post-election edit war syndrome Policy proposal to resolve editwarring in election-related infoboxes and articles when an election results in a handover of government or other change of incumbency. Note that this is an old discussion which petered out several months back, but creator is now requesting a revisit.
- Talk:Companion (Doctor Who) Under which circumstances (if any) is it acceptable to use non-free images in an imagemap as a navigational aid?
- Wikipedia talk:Babel/Levels Some issues about the levels of WP:Babel
- Wikipedia talk:Good articles Is it acceptable to ignore point 4 in the process (and thus effectively point 3 and 5)
- Talk:Saint Petersburg Is it ok to put miscellaneous facts into the See also section of an article about a large city?
- Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Archive 17 Is it appropriate to add pictures of dead/mutilated bodies of soldiers/victims and/or other gore, in the articles about wars/disasters?
- Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska there have been several recent AfD debates on this subject, but no clear consensus has arisen
- Wikipedia talk:Common knowledge What needs to be cited or not when it comes to popular culture? The article is unclear on where to draw the line for this.
Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles
Dear Wikipedians,
It appears to me that the full scope of Wikipedia's Review process for Science related articles only arises "by force" when the article is slated for deletion (is nomination for deletion constitutes more or less "by chance" random event ? - please correct/clarify my guess on the "randomness" of that deletion nomination process ...). Further, it appears that this Wikipedia's Review (which seems to be only arises in full scale during the argument for deletion ) is conducted in overly-democratic fashion where every "editor", irregardless of his qualifications in the area of the discussion, is allowed to have a voice.
Of course I understand that the "consensus" requirement is built-in into this process to alleviate possible "ignorance" of the majority "nay say-ers" ... but since in such review there is no mandatory participation of the person with sufficient "expert" credentials, thus (in my humble view) the "consensus" requirement is not fully working as designed (to preclude from the ignorant judgment outcome) and the review "quality" is less than to be desired (also note that such review process doesn't conform with the scientific publication review requirements due to lack of appropriate qualifications among the reviewing peers ...).
Would it be beneficial (for the Science articles only) to introduce the list of "participating" "qualified" reviewers, of which at least one should be involved into each review ?
Also it appears that there are possibly 3 areas of qualifying the Wikipedia's Science related article (each qualification area would require its own list): a) Scientific content b) Editorial (style, format. etc.) appearance c) Legal conformance
Please note that in my proposal I am only suggesting to use expert editors for science related articles. I could retreat further and suggest that such review (by expert editors) could be used just as an an optional feature (again for science related articles) either requested by the author of the article (for the purpose nomination of the article to become attested as attaining the "scientific publication" quality ) or by admin/editors during the deletion discussion, when they feel that the participation of experts is needed to decide on the issue.
On another hand (optionally) Wikipedia may consider to extend its charter (from being just an encyclopedia) and create/keep the section for the "original scientific research" postings - being clear marked as experimental and NOT fully reliable info ... That would allow Wikipedia to perform / stand as a "catalyst for change and innovation".
Could we start the discussion on that ? Apovolot (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
To add a discussion to RFC:
- Add {{RFCpolicy| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
- Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
- Warning:
!and=will not work, as they are used to separate parameters.{{and}}might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again. - To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
- For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
- Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 12 November 2008, at 22:39.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.