4,497
edits
FamilySearch Wiki:How Community Governs Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki:How Community Governs Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 14:36, 20 March 2009
, 20 March 2009added editorial admin, oversight and mgmt
(created page w/ brief description) |
(added editorial admin, oversight and mgmt) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page is an attempt to link to, categorize, and briefly describe the pages on Wikipedia that enable the community to govern themselves. | This page is an attempt to link to, categorize, and briefly describe the pages on Wikipedia that enable the community to govern themselves. | ||
== Articles and their topics == | |||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:About] discusses: | |||
*Editorial administration, oversight and management | |||
*Handling disputes and abuse | |||
*Editorial quality review | |||
The article is nicely laid out. It contains sections that summarize each bulleted ussue above, but at the beginning of each section is a link to a page that covers the topic in full. Very nice architecture. | |||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editorial_oversight_and_control Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control] discusses:<br> | |||
Information | |||
The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role he/she may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. <ref>from Wikipedia:About</ref>At present, around a 75–80% approval rating after enquiry is considered the requirement for such a role, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of projects within Wikipedia. | |||
A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes,[5] and its members are elected in three regularly-rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision-making process in which all regular editors can equally participate. | |||
<references /> | |||