Archive:Approval and Feedback: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis
(I missed this! You assumed correctly ;-))
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
(We definitely need a more efficent approval system (and not just the mechanical details))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Initiatives}}
{{Initiatives}}
This is the future home of an Approval and Feedback Initiative: it's all about recognizing excellence.
This is the future home of an Approval and Feedback Initiative: it's all about recognizing excellence.
==Personnel==


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):
Line 11: Line 13:
* [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]]
* [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]]
* [[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]]
* [[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]]
* [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa ]]
* (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 11:46, 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.

Personnel

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