Archive:Approval and Feedback: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Jaime Nubiola No edit summary |
imported>Roger A. Lohmann No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] | * [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] | ||
*[[User:Jaime Nubiola|Jaime Nubiola]] | *[[User:Jaime Nubiola|Jaime Nubiola]] | ||
* [[User:Roger Lohmann]] | |||
* (add your name if seriously interested, i.e., if you're interested in doing real work for the initiative) | * (add your name if seriously interested, i.e., if you're interested in doing real work for the initiative) | ||
Revision as of 18:01, 13 February 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):
- Larry Sanger
- D. Matt Innis (I'm just assuming :-) --LMS)
- David Shapinsky
- Carl Hewitt
- Martin Baldwin-Edwards
- Supten Sarbadhikari
- Anthony.Sebastian
- David E. Volk
- Jaime Nubiola
- User:Roger Lohmann
- (add your name if seriously interested, i.e., if you're interested in doing real work for the initiative)
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