Archive:Approval and Feedback: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Roger A. Lohmann
No edit summary
imported>D. Matt Innis
(I missed this! You assumed correctly ;-))
Line 4: Line 4:
Persons interested in taking an active role in developing and managing this initiative (please add your name if you're seriously interested):
Persons interested in taking an active role in developing and managing this initiative (please add your name if you're seriously interested):
* [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
* [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
* [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] (I'm just assuming :-) --LMS)
* [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]]  
* [[User:David Shapinsky|David Shapinsky]]
* [[User:David Shapinsky|David Shapinsky]]
* [[User:Carl Hewitt|Carl Hewitt]]
* [[User:Carl Hewitt|Carl Hewitt]]

Revision as of 11:34, 10 March 2008

Citizendium Initiatives
Eduzendium | Featured Article | Recruitment | Subpages | Core Articles | Uncategorized pages |
Requested Articles | Feedback Requests | Wanted Articles

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

This is the future home of an Approval and Feedback Initiative: it's all about recognizing excellence.

Persons interested in taking an active role in developing and managing this initiative (please add your name if you're seriously interested):

Problems with current (Feb. 2008) article approval system

  • Rate of approval too slow
  • Too much confusion about what the process is
  • No simple, prominently-placed version of instructions
  • No easy way to get the word out to specific sets of editors that we want reviews
  • No set way for editors to simply *review* an article and thereby enumerate what an article needs in order to be approvable