223:"Two things to consider: 1) At least in literature, the non-peer reviewed journals are sometimes considered to have a forgivable bias towards certain authors or groups of authors. These journals reflect the popular sentiment of admirers but are not considered authoritative by the academic community. 2) Many wiki-vandals when confronted with their lack of authority on a subject simply make references up. This puts an academic in untenable position, because we will undergo the time and expense to verify sources which puts an economic burden on us if we want to contribute to Knowledge (XXG). The wiki-vandal, however, can make up references and source doctored articles with no personal repercussions just to bolster his point. The problem of authority in Knowledge (XXG) is not one dimensional (sourcing authoritative information). The reputation of the poster is another dimension that should be evaluated, just like we rate sellers on eBay. --
209:"...the gold rule is the blind juried journal, second the juried journal, then journals not peer-reviewed. In texts it is much more squiffy, with state of the field articles (synthesis of current published research), textbook chapters, case studies/research reports, and everything else as very fuzzy categories. Popular press, commentary, and other third hand reports become very questionable except when no other cite is available. ...what about citations which are exclusively abstracts of unpublished papers? -
367:- novice users will either be unable to edit content, or break it trying to edit it), or at least render it useless as a scientific source of references (because the References section becomes an ugly, unsorted, hodgepodge mess this way). It is even impossible to tell how credible a source is at first glance; there's a reason why scientific references want to see the year of publication in the text, not just in the ref source...
541:
conduct than content, and the ArbCom even more so. It is possible that if we can establish groups that will be widely recognized as relatively unbiased and expert in certain areas that this will help build consensus. It is less obvious whether it will rein in any of the more blatant POV pushers, especially those with little concern for intellectual honesty. Still, there seems to be potential here, at least for experiment.
21:
873:
Rather than being officially hired, such a panel (if it is approved) could consist instead of users who have demonstrated both interest and expertise in various important topics. The committee should not be expected to rely on its own knowledge alone: rather, it should neutrally observe the facts presented and the references, and make its decision on that basis.
778:
to the
Arbitration Committee. Such a committee would do a better job handeling, e.g., the disputes between Adam Carr and the LaRouche editors, as it would be able to take the quality of the articles into consideration (as opposed to behavioral matters like reversions, mediation, or civility)... The aftermath of the arbitration case between Adam Carr and
379:
to deduce which tag names have been used already, what the refs are and what is output text, only to reference some minor fact. I am disgusted at this; I have collected some 1000s of biology papers on my box that I'd like to put into WP, but for a lack of a decent citation code, I'd waste far too much time with it. It sucks.
1546:
it isn't allowed to become another
Esperanza and develop a separation mentality or superiority viewpoint. I have concerns that would apply to any "sign up to promote ways of getting better standards" group, because it's so easy for people to slip into "our standards and approaches" mindset, where one
975:
subjects not covered on paper encyclopedias, find their home in our project because people that are passionate about these subjects care to participate. The value of WP does not lay on "yet another article about G. W. Bush", but on the diversity of subjects developed by a sometimes riotous and unruly
777:
I still support what
Slrubenstein called "the more anarchic element of Wiki" and what uc called Wiki's "you can edit any article right now" model. I think that within this framework, though, it is possible to set up, e.g., a system of editorial arbitration reviewed by expert editors as an alternative
378:
I try to refer scholarly sources as much as possible, and stick to academic standards. But it is occurring increasingly often that I simply annotate a source for someone else to deal with, because I don't want to spend half an hour picking through the messed-up code of a reftagged 50K article, trying
362:
Tags mess up source text by putting refs (which can be several lines long if properly formatted) into article text. Also, the output is totally inadequate by academic standards: the references are sorted by the order in which they appear in the text, which is of course almost arbitrary. No paper with
872:
Articles on controversial subjects (e.g., Israel/Palestine, "creationism," George Bush) could benefit from the suggestions made above. Requiring PhDs for members of the review panels/committees, however, is a proposition I would not support, for it would involve the exclusion of other capable users.
766:
22:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) I strongly support the more anarchic element of wikipedia, in which anyone can edit any article any time and all articles are works in process. But I am also committed to some basic wikipeida standards, especially NPOV, no original research, and verifiability. I think most
540:
It has been variously suggested that the Forum for
Encyclopedic Standards could lead to a means of settling content disputes: arbitrators with editorial discretion to focus on disputes concerning point of view, language, sources, factual accuracy, etc. The existing mediation mechanisms focus more on
255:
This is a good idea--and in many cases it would just need an external reference to the appropriate information from the source itself of from a library--there are excellent library instruction material on most sources. We could add any Wiki-specific comments. I'd rather do this as part of a group,
840:
I'm a new user but I've already been frustrated by ideology masquerading as fact. I like the idea that anyone can edit an article, which is what makes
Knowledge (XXG) special, but there should be some form of expert review available so that the quality of articles can be assessed, rather than there
804:
I think it's clear something needs to be done in certain cases. Some articles get stuck unable to make any progress, others suffer the even worse fate of only those with (near) infinite time on their hands can contribute due to obstructionalists being prepared to sit there and put roadblocks up for
329:
Various individuals have disagreed over whether it would be best to focus such effort on controversial or uncontroversial topics. Is there any reason why some people couldn't pursue the presumably calmer work on uncontroversial topics, while others work out how we can approach controversial topics?
579:
suggested a process for recruiting editorial arbitrators (and immediately ruled himself out of such a role), perhaps along the lines of the elections to the board of the
Wikimedia Foundation, and expressed a hope that a large share of the arbiters would be academics, with the Foundation nominating
382:
What is needed is some template that links
Harvard citations to references that are nicely ordered in a dedicated section. Basically something that looks like the ref tags output-wise (save for the author/year format which is now sorely missing), but code-wise is more similar to the Cite template
675:
04:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC). I am delighted to see someone taking an initiative in this area. What
Knowledge (XXG) needs more than anything else is a movement of genuine editors to insist on quality control and the weeding out of non-encyclopaedic editors. Incidentally, I could use some support at
1394:
I'm worried about the vulnerability of political articles to "spin" as applied by paid PR specialists. That has already happened to the
Congress articles. It's like campaign $ $ . The best solution in campaign reform is publicity and that should work for Wiki. We should have a two-step process
428:
many
Knowledge (XXG) articles are not yet worthy of being considered citable sources. We also seem to have consensus that it would be a very worthy goal to work out how to raise certain articles or, more precisely, certain versions of certain articles to the standard of citable, peer-reviewed
1103:
Agree that a panel should consist of people who have demonstrated their interest and activity in writing about the field; and should act neutrally based on content and references, not on personal knowledge. Expertise helps to quickly identify good and bad sources, and to recognize competing
964:
18:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) - I wholeheartedly support the objectives of this forum. I am not sure about some of the suggested policies. I support those policies that can attain the objectives of academic excellence without abandoning the democratic ideals that Knowledge (XXG) has been built
587:
Other suggestions of a more open system, allowing anyone sufficiently active in the field on Knowledge (XXG), or academics with demonstrable experience outside of Knowledge (XXG), to contribute to these editorial discussions, would likely be a smaller and less controversial step.
841:
simply being mediation between personalities. What counts is what the readers end up reading and it needs to be accurate, particularly because Knowledge (XXG) articles tend to come up early in Google searches. If Knowledge (XXG) spreads falsehoods, they'll be spread far and fast.
1091:
15:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) I share the sentiments of most people here, which is that it is important to keep Knowledge (XXG) valuable and free by (1) holding all users accountable to basic standards of verifiability and NPOVness and (2) encouraging anybody and everybody to
391:
be a supreme academic source, as content could in theory be updated more rapidly than elsewhere. In practice, it is not, and reftagging makes matters worse as an overtagged article will have such ugly, hard to edit code that it will be left to sit and rot until outdated.
410:
Some articles reference the time period at which the article was written or modified without stating what that time period was, e.g. "Today, there is a drive to eat food from the inside out." I think that any time of article creation or editing shold be noted, e.g.
1551:
of those who lack this supposed insight. A pool of people who are there for others seeking experienced input, and who can offer tested and communally supported approaches to common problems, is a good thing. But going in these directions would be a bad thing.
191:
The guidelines should encourage citation of the references from the body of the article itself. That is, wherever possible, any major point in the article should have a citation to the references section so that readers can check the original source of the
232:
Not just in literature but in many technical fields, the professional magazines and other non-peer-viewed material are the best, and sometimes only, sources. We should be guided by an (appropriate modification) of the accepted standards in each subject.
470:
Who is appropriate to vet the articles? How can one define "serious and committed" editors? (All of these proposals are clearly controversial; there is no inherent reason multiple mechanisms could not be created for different "seals of approval")
767:
people are vigilant about NPOV (although they may disagree on what it is or how to achieve it) but people are often very careless on the latter two standards. Still, I see this as a case of enforcing existing standards, not creating new ones.
773:
23:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC). More in spirit than in reality these days, as non-Knowledge (XXG) projects consume almost all my time now. But, in broad, I support what SLR writes above and would hope to make some small contribution to this worthy
415:, there has been encouragement to note times of creations and edits of Knowledge (XXG) articles." (note that the Wikimarkup form of this link is ].) Otherwise a future reader has little idea of the currency of the information.
1850:
1456:
Is this a membership list or a list of comments? I am not sure whether I am or should be a member of this Forum. To judge from the name alone, it would seem that I should be. Please see my comment in the talk page.
782:, which left Adam scaling back his work while the LaRouche users are as active as ever, IMHO epitomizes the problems borne out of the lack of some sort of system of editorial review based on encyclopedic merit.
386:
In a nutshell, for me it's not the lack of sources, but the lack of citation code that makes rapid, no-frills citing of sources possible, with an output format that will satisfy academic needs and standards. WP
1376:
754:
21:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC). I think that these are good goals overall, and support many of them, though I do still support the "you can edit any article right now" model that has made Knowledge (XXG) successful.
599:
533:
203:
These might eventually be universal across Knowledge (XXG), but there seems almost no chance of immediate consensus on that. We may be able rather rapidly to establish standards in some subject-matter areas.
849:
I support this project in its stated goals, but not in the projected establishment of a second arbitration structure which duplicates jurisdiction nor in the use of "expertise" as a screen for POV editing.
156:
Agreement, by reducing controversy and edit wars. People are much more tolerant of statements that they do not agree with if it is clear that the statement is attributed to a particular individual or group.
256:
but I will be adding links to such help as I come across them (very slowly) and I'll keep a list. If done this way they wouldn't disrupt the main space. But they should have some sort of category marker.
548:, there is a need to define "serious" editors, and the same set of questions arise, but with less opportunity of going several ways at once: we can't have five different arbitrators for the same matter.
805:
others. I'm not yet sure whether this is the correct something, but it appears the best shot we have going at the moment, so I'm jumping on this horse and riding it for a while. 04:40, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
1731:
206:
Possibly distinct policies on book references, peer-reviewed journal references, magazine and newspaper references, documents from governments or well-known organizations, miscellaneous web references
320:
that aims to reference articles on Knowledge (XXG). You could add an article to the "articles being worked on" section, or nominate it to be the biweekly special article. -] 03:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1679:
506:
Rather than assume that this needs to be an elitist process, we could develop a more democratic system by which any logged on user could rate an article in a system of open voting such as the
179:
The guidelines must be flexible because of the broad range of topics that they must apply to. Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics.
1619:- WikiReaders are collections of articles from Knowledge (XXG) on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
834:
I support a tiered system for articles, with an option to easilly vote on articles status within that system within the article itself (maybe on the talk page). ] 18:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
159:
Credibility, by, for example, reducing the number of phantom attributions such as "most people feel", or "some experts claim" which are frequently used to disguise rants and mere opinion.
287:
its sources in a format that adheres to academic standards I think (and maintaining the editability of the source code for novices, which it also doesn't due to use of tagged refs).
971:
18:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) - Don't throw the baby with the dirty water. Yes, we need to find a way to make WP better, but to resort to PhD elitism is a mistake IMO. Knowledge about
363:
such a references section would be accepted, let alone published, by a scientific journal. Using ref tags will destroy WP's credibility as an academic source (because it violates
947:
in the academy here, so we can't just transplant academic ideas wholesale), but I support standards which can be enforced in ways compatible with the spirit of Knowledge (XXG). â
930:
article immediately" policy. Contentious articles need a more disciplined editorial policy -- perhaps oversight by a committee, with one editorial committee per restricted page.
217:"In many fields in the social sciences and humanities, non-peer reviewed books ultimately have greater influence and are more important sources of authoritative knowledge..." -
383:(only more flexible). Maybe some sort of anchor tag will do it. And if we'd have to format the refs manually - so be it. Given the plethora of sources, it might be unavoidable.
138:
Please keep this page relatively terse. Discussions might be extended either on talk or on additional pages; generating a lot of Knowledge (XXG): or m: pages would be fine.
976:
group of people that care. There are enough encyclopedias online out there, so let us not only make the best encyclopedia, but the most diverse, vast, and interesting one. --
1150:
I would like to join. The standards for articles varies considerably. Further, I think that an article about a book should be written by people who actually read the book.
760:, echo UC above and question Adam's statement "weeding out ... editors", would rather weed out non-encyclopaedic content/submissions through a cultural intolerance of it.
338:
Wikicpedia is not an academic journal. It is a general encyclopedia. Not a scholarly encyclopedia. This super caution and super pedantry is not good. Back off from that.
1808:
1674:
317:
1726:
1107:
Possibly needs to be dual standards. Areas with a fanbase and popular culture will always attract more support and be more ephemeral. That's not altogether bad.
275:
No ;-) because a) references are unordered (author name or pub date) b) date of publication is not generally given in text, making it impossible in these cases to
146:
We could significantly improve the references and the citation apparatus of various articles. Better referencing would have several benefits. It would enhance:
1773:
62:
1764:
Some Wikipedians have formed voluntary associations to organize various activities on Knowledge (XXG). Consult their pages if you are interested in joining.
1653:
1875:
1159:
I've been meaning to join this for some time, yet keep forgetting. I feel passionately about making Knowledge (XXG) credible, and would love to help out.
1870:
35:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
1427:
I'd like to see us move towards a "Knowledge (XXG) Verson 1.0" that passed fact and reference checks, copyedited, and peer-reviewed by topic experts
69:
on Knowledge (XXG), our mission is to build a vibrant community with a pool of expertise that will match any organization, corporate or university.
1711:
430:
1721:
1634:- a self-declared team, others welcome to join; no official status. Goals parallel to this project, but action-oriented rather than a think tank.
1631:
1183:
I've been looking at this for a few months so it's about time I signed on. I support the goals of enhancing quality referencing and citability.--
561:
Difficult-but-trendy theories : Semiotics, feminist and cultural theory, cutting-edge sociology and theoretical economics; philosophy in general
58:, the IRC channel, the mailing list, and conflict resolution committees (and who in turn currently lack a voice in the formulation of policy).
1746:
127:
493:
1643:
36:
1835:
1637:
1404:
I totally support a peer review system where qualified people with expertise in the topic edit those topics,and NOBODY ELSE. (blocked user)
1788:
1830:
279:
assess how up-to-date a referenced fact is (a 1990s source is likely to be superior to a 1950s one if they conflict). As a paradigm of a
54:
committed to writing quality articles can meet to promote encyclopedic and scholarly standards, even if they are not participants on the
677:
444:
Probably what we have now is a perfectly good mechanism for perpetual draft articles, so the question is how to manage vetted articles.
171:
Honesty, by properly indicating just what it is that is taken from a public domain source &, if it's the entire article, saying so.
1820:
481:
429:
literature (or to some other comparable standard). This seems closely related to the goal that some have characterized as "creating
196:
Implemention may need to be multi-faceted, sequential, and/or dynamic. Possible useful tools to coordinate such an effort include:
1443:
1798:
1778:
1741:
489:
228:
213:
1865:
521:
1669:
448:
162:
Connectivity, by providing sources of additional information for those readers that wish to research the topic in more detail.
1783:
1716:
325:
One or more "collaborations of the week" (or month) for improving references and citation apparatus for particular articles.
1252:
So many people want something like this, but no one can come up with a proposal that everyone likes. (I can't, either.) â
1401:
503:
could endorse a particular version of an article; presumably groups could form whose endorsement would carry some weight.
474:
Specific academic qualifications may be required; or alternately a history of good work on Knowledge (XXG) in that field.
339:
434:
1625:
1214:
almost immediately. :-) Finding sources and citing them helps NPOV as well as our credibility as an encyclopedia. --
485:
150:
Accuracy, by encouraging contributors to research the facts rather than writing from memory or stating mere opinions.
751:
1695:
1659:
1542:
I'm still figuring out what this is and what it represents and will lead to, but till then it looks a good idea,
1366:
1267:
I am focusing on the math/physics pages, and have encountered quite a few problems dealing with various kinds of
1036:
844:
815:
917:
00:38, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC) I support factuality in articles, if this forum can help to insure that, I'm all for it.
1803:
1751:
1440:
507:
51:
1268:
931:
923:
779:
1612:
168:
Objectivity, by, rather than asserting a fact, attributing the assertions of fact to authoritative sources.
1548:
1493:
1224:
624:
1690:
1215:
1200:
1174:
I'll support anything that improves general article quality, including the use of experts as reviewers.
602:
for short comments (several sentences), or the discussion page for longer comments (e.g., with a title).
200:
Standards for what are acceptable sources and for a minimum number of sources an article should provide.
1682:- brief list of criteria to bear in mind when trying to answer the question "which is better WP or SEP?"
1144:
1086:
747:
66:
1480:
1271:, some more insiduous than others. I noticed that some members have added comments above which appear
347:
28:
20:
1600:
1582:
1564:
1556:
1537:
1527:
1519:
1506:
1483:
1475:
1461:
1451:
1424:
1410:
1396:
1386:
1371:
1334:
1326:
1318:
1309:
1296:
1282:
1264:
1256:
1247:
1236:
1218:
1205:
1187:
1178:
1165:
1155:
1147:
1138:
1130:
396:
350:
260:
237:
1500:
1383:
1292:
1051:
1033:
1027:
961:
808:
393:
268:
188:
The guidelines should encourage a broad range of types of references (ie., book, journal, Web, etc.).
55:
1077:
295:
1577:
1122:
1068:
666:
657:
118:
1437:
1664:
1306:
1302:
901:
869:
757:
738:
701:
641:
511:
309:
299:
210:
1509:
I find it odd that the two policies I see most commonly violated are both core content policies.
1490:
425:
412:
1530:
If we enforced standards, and removed direct copies from public domain, how much would be left?
710:
334:
I note some articles have a footnote each line and some a footnote and reference for each word.
1516:
1512:
1472:
1359:
1323:
1060:
02:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I believe that this is an important step in refining Knowledge (XXG).
955:
763:
728:
218:
113:
1793:
1211:
1083:
937:
851:
691:
364:
153:
Verifiability, by providing readers with the sources of the facts contained in the article.
1594:
1407:
1288:
1048:
1021:
983:
879:
863:
837:
611:
1825:
apathetic in the sense of having a centrist stance in the Deletionist/Inclusionist debate
1515:
It remains to be seen whether something so concieved and so dedicated can long endure. --
1846:
A project page to develop an effective quality management system is being started here:
1570:
1561:
1253:
1175:
1108:
1064:
905:
801:
681:
672:
663:
653:
619:
252:
any frequently-used sources, either in main article space or in a distinct name space.
123:
1446:
1057:
1859:
1042:
996:
885:
822:
734:
719:
697:
1534:
1458:
1391:
1350:
1331:
1279:
1261:
1242:
1162:
1098:
1014:
1007:
948:
897:
891:
882:
23:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) - I can copyedit and Google search with the best of them.
725:
175:
In determining citation guidelines the following general principles are important:
185:
The guidelines should encourage more references rather than fewer (within reason).
1616:
678:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_mediation#User:Herschelkrustofsky_and_User:Adam_Carr
79:
A system to indicate articles or article versions that have attained those goals.
1417:
1315:
1197:
1135:
989:
977:
968:
914:
857:
828:
770:
687:
224:
108:
477:
Revealing one's actual identity (vs. strictly an online alias) may be required.
1589:
1184:
876:
789:
635:
1700:
1851:
Knowledge (XXG): Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Quality Management Project
1467:
795:
629:
616:
312:
would probably work, but the vast majority of Knowledge (XXG) articles will
1338:
283:
article, it's great. But articles should be both well-sourced, as well as
1553:
1524:
783:
716:
647:
576:
359:
Problem here is mainly the lack of a good, sleek, flexible ref template.
257:
234:
480:
Groups might be chosen in a similar manner to how we already choose the
346:
It's getting more scholarly. This collaboration is an excellent idea. --
1095:
1377:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/General comments
600:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/General comments
534:
Knowledge (XXG):Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration
1239:. This is better than WfEM. We need something like this around here.
373:
Anchored (numbered) refs are simply broken. They never worked right.
1013:
Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
441:
Possibility of distinguishing draft articles and vetted articles.
1680:
Knowledge (XXG):Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
722:
13:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) - with some caveats, see the Talk: page.
1039:
19:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Knowledge (XXG) needs to be trustworthy.
1732:
User:Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems
709:
With some reservations, but I think this is an important step.
926:
16:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) In summary, I support a "you can edit
15:
580:
candidates to reach a consensus vote on the Wiki. 172 did
943:
To echo some other comments, I'm unsure about methods (we
182:
The guidelines should encourage better "quality" sources.
165:
Neutrality, by citing all relevant authoritative sources.
1738:
Other mechanisms of improving articles by group process
1640:- a proposed prototype for the process of pushing to 1.0
584:
intend to indicate that these would be paid positions.
82:
A quality-based method of resolving editorial disputes.
1305:
This is the most important Knowledge (XXG) project. --
911:
Somthing should be done. What exaclty, I don't know. ]
545:
1341:
some of the requested features in Mediawiki this year
894:
18:40, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) - Copyediting,here we come.
272:
proposed as a paradigm of a well-referenced article.
1703:- citation and article validation mechanism proposal
1675:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
1275:
with the goals of this forum--- what's up with that?
27:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
1727:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article removal candidates
731:
15:01, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) with nuanced reservations
454:Possible mechanisms for "tagging" vetted versions:
1654:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) medicine standards
995:I make extensive use of bibliographic references.
831:18:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) I'm in, just saw this.
1533:I'd like to join this, I think its a good idea.
1020:I support both quality and the wiki spirit. --
1395:involving registration and a Board of Review.
1169:Have been making progress on citation methods.
860:- wiki and quality: they are not incompatible.
499:We might be able to develop a system by which
1299:Important for reputation of the encyclopedia.
1285:Great initiative; we need to keep this alive.
8:
1712:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
1722:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured article
1632:Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team
370:Harvard template is bloated and inflexible
1747:Knowledge (XXG):Article improvement drive
1210:Whenever I see a POV dispute, I bring up
1644:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for publication
306:â to target pages for such improvement.
1836:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
420:Referencing of Knowledge (XXG) articles
142:Referencing in Knowledge (XXG) articles
1831:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
1585:I support this project wholeheartedly.
1104:'schools' of thought when they appear.
522:Knowledge (XXG):Citing Knowledge (XXG)
488:; or alternately in the way we choose
1171:Interrupted by ArbCom kangaroo court.
1141:Definitely needed for the humanities.
551:Possible areas of particular focus:
7:
1871:Knowledge (XXG) editorial validation
1821:Association of Apathetic Wikipedians
1809:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
1074:03:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I like this
463:Pages of pointers to vetted versions
457:Software extensions for this purpose
72:We envision developing or refining:
1742:Knowledge (XXG):Request for comment
1402:User:Don't sleep clown will eat you
1670:Knowledge (XXG):Approval mechanism
1628:- An open discussion on this topic
449:Knowledge (XXG):Approval mechanism
134:Proposed guidelines and strategies
14:
1876:Inactive Wikipedian organizations
1717:Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles
1192:At last, a good idea to help the
1774:The Business and Economics Forum
1228:
1002:I'll do everything to fight the
48:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards
19:
1660:meta:Academic standards disease
1638:Jimbo's proposal,Chicago Meetup
1595:
1430:
1361:
1354:
1344:
424:We seem to have consensus that
1768:On the English Knowledge (XXG)
1626:Knowledge (XXG):Pushing to 1.0
1528:20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
340:Don't sleep clown will eat you
261:20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
238:20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
98:Schemes for dispute resolution
95:Schemes for editorial approval
1:
1827:No. Just generally apathetic)
1696:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1565:07:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1538:07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1494:
1425:11:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1411:18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1397:11:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1319:19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
1310:17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
1297:06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
1283:00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
1265:06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
1248:03:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
1237:03:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
1231:
1219:21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
1206:23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
1188:10:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
128:Wikipedias in other languages
1760:Other voluntary associations
1590:
1557:14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1387:22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1372:22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
1335:23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1327:21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
1257:04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
1225:
1179:00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
1166:05:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
1156:04:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
1148:09:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
904:remarks at 33, coupled with
819:. ] 06:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
592:Please keep comments on the
558:Physics, Biology, Archeology
294:A mechanism â comparable to
76:A set of goals for articles.
63:Business and Economics Forum
1804:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
1752:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
1139:21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
1131:20:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
564:Modern and ancient religion
555:Modern history and politics
1892:
1613:Knowledge (XXG):WikiReader
1601:14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1507:00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
1484:23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
1476:02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
508:Article validation feature
351:22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
1691:Knowledge (XXG):Footnotes
1583:16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1520:21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1462:02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
1452:19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
992:18:52, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
854:12:44, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
694:06:41, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
1054:01:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1030:03:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
1017:15:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
999:21:50, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
986:22:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
980:18:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
958:04:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
940:21:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
888:04:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
866:16:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
825:10:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
798:00:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
792:23:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
786:23:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
744:17:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
713:10:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
706:08:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
684:05:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
669:03:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
650:03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
644:03:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
638:03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
632:03:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
626:03:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
397:11:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
248:Possibility of articles
227:20:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1789:Harmonious editing club
1665:meta:Article validation
1650:Standards and approval
1080:08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
1045:18:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1010:22:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
1004:Encyclopedia of Rumours
954:This is the way to go.
951:21:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
934:16:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
900:- particularly support
780:User:Herschelkrustofsky
598:list below terse. Use
296:Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup
119:Two independent sources
1866:Inactive project pages
451:seem possibly relevant
1656:- proposed guidelines
527:Editorial arbitration
460:Namespace distinction
447:Various proposals in
316:need this. There is
302:or something like it
298:and possibly placing
67:voluntary association
845:PedanticallySpeaking
365:Jimbo's Principle #3
269:Strategic management
87:Major areas of focus
56:Wikimedia Foundation
1799:Welcoming committee
1779:Cleaning department
532:For discussion see
431:Knowledge (XXG) 1.0
426:as of November 2004
92:Sourcing and citing
1842:Quality Management
1708:Featured Articles
1170:
932:Wile E. Heresiarch
924:Wile E. Heresiarch
310:Template:Unsourced
300:Template:Unsourced
281:thoroughly sourced
1784:Department of Fun
1567:- May this suceed
1505:
1449:
1168:
1089:
1073:
1026:
704:
318:a new WikiProject
304:on the talk pages
114:rules of evidence
50:is a place where
44:
43:
1883:
1597:
1592:
1580:
1575:
1574:
1496:
1488:
1436:
1434:
1423:
1420:
1379:for my comments.
1369:
1365:
1358:
1348:
1245:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1203:
1145:Joaquin Murietta
1128:
1125:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1101:
1087:
1071:
1063:
1024:
702:
342:(blocked user).
40:
23:
16:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1856:
1855:
1844:
1817:
1770:
1762:
1622:Pushing to 1.0
1617:meta:WikiReader
1609:
1578:
1572:
1571:
1504:
1468:Alexander Plank
1466:great idea. --
1421:
1416:
1367:
1353:
1243:
1201:
1158:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1099:
1088:leave a message
1069:
962:mydogategodshat
740:explains it all
608:
574:
529:
435:stable versions
422:
413:As of July 2005
407:
394:Dysmorodrepanis
144:
136:
105:
103:Possible models
89:
34:
12:
11:
5:
1889:
1887:
1879:
1878:
1873:
1868:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1853:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1769:
1766:
1761:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1749:
1744:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1714:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1698:
1693:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1677:
1672:
1667:
1662:
1657:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1641:
1635:
1629:
1620:
1608:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1586:
1568:
1559:
1540:
1531:
1522:
1510:
1498:
1486:
1478:
1470:
1464:
1454:
1428:
1413:
1405:
1399:
1392:Richard Jensen
1389:
1381:
1349:
1342:
1329:
1321:
1312:
1300:
1286:
1276:
1259:
1250:
1240:
1221:
1216:Idont Havaname
1208:
1190:
1181:
1172:
1160:
1154:
1151:
1142:
1133:
1105:
1093:
1081:
1075:
1061:
1055:
1046:
1040:
1031:
1018:
1011:
1000:
993:
987:
981:
966:
959:
952:
941:
935:
921:
918:
912:
909:
895:
889:
883:
874:
867:
861:
855:
847:
842:
835:
832:
826:
820:
806:
799:
793:
787:
775:
768:
761:
755:
745:
732:
729:(deep or sour)
726:--user:Ed Poor
723:
714:
707:
695:
685:
670:
661:
651:
645:
639:
633:
627:
614:
607:
604:
591:
573:
570:
568:
566:
565:
562:
559:
556:
528:
525:
518:
517:
516:
515:
504:
497:
486:Administrators
478:
475:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
458:
452:
445:
421:
418:
417:
416:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
371:
368:
354:
353:
336:
335:
327:
326:
323:
322:
321:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
265:
264:
263:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
215:
204:
194:
193:
189:
186:
183:
180:
173:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
143:
140:
135:
132:
131:
130:
124:best practices
121:
116:
111:
104:
101:
100:
99:
96:
93:
88:
85:
84:
83:
80:
77:
42:
41:
33:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1888:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1869:
1867:
1864:
1863:
1861:
1852:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1826:
1822:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1765:
1759:
1753:
1750:
1748:
1745:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1710:
1709:
1707:
1702:
1701:meta:Wikicite
1699:
1697:
1694:
1692:
1689:
1688:
1686:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1671:
1668:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1658:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1607:Related pages
1606:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1593:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1576:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1549:drama-rescuer
1545:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1465:
1463:
1460:
1455:
1453:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1419:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1398:
1393:
1390:
1388:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1378:
1373:
1370:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1317:
1314:Count me in.
1313:
1311:
1308:
1307:Ian Pitchford
1304:
1303:Ian Pitchford
1301:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1241:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1121:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
979:
974:
970:
967:
963:
960:
957:
953:
950:
946:
942:
939:
936:
933:
929:
925:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
903:
899:
896:
893:
890:
887:
884:
881:
878:
875:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
856:
853:
848:
846:
843:
839:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
818:
817:
812:
811:
807:
803:
800:
797:
794:
791:
788:
785:
781:
776:
772:
769:
765:
762:
759:
756:
753:
749:
748:The Uninvited
746:
743:
741:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
708:
705:
699:
696:
693:
689:
686:
683:
679:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
642:GeneralPatton
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
623:
622:
618:
615:
613:
610:
609:
605:
603:
601:
597:
596:
589:
585:
583:
578:
571:
569:
563:
560:
557:
554:
553:
552:
549:
547:
542:
538:
537:
535:
526:
524:
523:
513:
512:Magnus Manske
509:
505:
502:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
473:
472:
469:
462:
459:
456:
455:
453:
450:
446:
443:
442:
440:
439:
438:
436:
432:
427:
419:
414:
409:
408:
404:
398:
395:
390:
385:
381:
377:
372:
369:
366:
361:
360:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
333:
332:
331:
324:
319:
315:
311:
308:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
271:
270:
266:
262:
259:
254:
253:
251:
247:
239:
236:
231:
230:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
216:
214:
212:
208:
207:
205:
202:
201:
199:
198:
197:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
177:
176:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
148:
147:
141:
139:
133:
129:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
106:
102:
97:
94:
91:
90:
86:
81:
78:
75:
74:
73:
70:
68:
64:
59:
57:
53:
49:
38:
32:
30:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1845:
1824:
1763:
1588:
1547:becomes the
1543:
1517:Shirahadasha
1513:ShiraHadasha
1481:Singkong2005
1473:FrancisTyers
1431:
1374:
1362:
1355:
1345:
1337:- hoping to
1324:Peace Inside
1273:inconsistent
1272:
1223:
1194:encyclopedia
1193:
1006:movement. --
1003:
972:
944:
927:
814:
809:
764:Slrubenstein
739:
620:
594:
593:
590:
586:
581:
575:
567:
550:
543:
539:
531:
530:
519:
500:
423:
405:Time periods
388:
348:Singkong2005
337:
328:
313:
303:
284:
280:
276:
267:
249:
219:Slrubenstein
195:
174:
145:
137:
71:
60:
47:
45:
37:village pump
26:
1375:Please see
1092:participate
1084:Shane Smith
938:Paul August
852:Fred Bauder
572:Recruitment
496:recipients.
109:peer review
52:Wikipedians
1860:Categories
1573:DDStretch
1408:MatthewDBA
1384:Kevin baas
1289:deeptrivia
1022:L33tminion
984:Apwoolrich
928:almost any
902:Emsworth's
864:MathKnight
802:Shane King
612:Neutrality
520:See also:
285:presenting
65:, another
31:reference.
29:historical
1794:Typo team
1687:Sourcing
1562:Pavithran
1339:implement
1269:Wikicruft
1254:Omegatron
1078:Yu Ninjie
664:Mackensen
654:Netoholic
510:coded by
490:Mediators
61:Like the
1544:provided
1432:GUĂSĂEGN
1043:WikiUser
1015:adamsan
997:Alterego
886:Maurreen
870:Emsworth
823:Mustafaa
774:project.
735:Cecropia
494:Barnstar
1815:On Meta
1535:Richiar
1422:a Z e !
1351:normxxx
1332:Jleybov
1280:Leifern
1244:tomf688
1212:WP:CITE
1163:SEWilco
1008:Pjacobi
949:Tkinias
898:Moriori
892:Lyellin
617:âNo-One
606:Members
595:Members
546:vetting
277:roughly
1615:&
1579:(talk)
1418:.c o m
1316:Durova
1065:Trödel
1058:E=MC^2
1028:(talk)
990:Golbez
978:Zappaz
969:Zappaz
945:aren't
915:Pedant
906:Adam's
858:ChrisG
829:Taxman
771:Tannin
758:Amgine
720:(talk)
688:Jmabel
667:(talk)
501:anyone
482:ArbCom
225:Modemx
211:Amgine
1368:email
1226:Voice
1185:MONGO
1052:Quill
1049:Oldak
908:at 9.
790:Danny
750:Co.,
636:Jayjg
621:Jones
433:" or
389:could
250:about
192:idea.
126:from
1501:talk
1491:porg
1293:talk
1198:Tito
1176:Jeeb
1136:nobs
1096:+sj
1070:talk
1034:mark
973:many
956:Taku
877:Rick
838:Slim
796:Xtra
752:Inc.
717:Noel
711:Ambi
703:T@lk
692:Talk
682:Adam
673:Adam
658:talk
630:IZAK
314:have
46:The
1554:FT2
1525:DGG
1457:---
1232:All
1229:of
1119:493
965:on.
784:172
698:JFW
648:Xed
582:not
577:172
544:As
492:or
484:or
437:.
258:DGG
235:DGG
1862::
1596:ÆS
1591:Çą0
1495:es
1459:CH
1450:â
1435:â
1415:--
1295:)
1278:--
1262:CH
1202:xd
1196:.
1153:]
1127:lk
1124:Ta
1116:ns
1113:yo
1110:Dl
737:|
700:|
690:|
680:.
1823:(
1503:)
1499:(
1489:â
1447:X
1444:E
1441:T
1438:U
1363:â
1356:|
1346:â
1291:(
1100:+
1067:|
1037:â
1025:|
920:]
880:K
816:K
813:.
810:J
742:Âź
660:)
656:(
536:.
514:.
411:"
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
