Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

The Forum for Encyclopedic Standards is a place where Wikipedians committed to writing quality articles can meet to promote encyclopedic and scholarly standards, even if they are not participants on the Wikimedia Foundation, the IRC channel, the mailing list, and conflict resolution committees (and who in turn currently lack a voice in the formulation of policy).

Like the Business and Economics Forum, another voluntary association on Wikipedia, our mission is to build a vibrant community with a pool of expertise that will match any organization, corporate or university.

We envision developing or refining:

  1. A set of goals for articles.
  2. A system to indicate articles or article versions that have attained those goals.
  3. A quality-based method of resolving editorial disputes.

Major areas of focus[edit]

  1. Sourcing and citing
  2. Schemes for editorial approval
  3. Schemes for dispute resolution

Possible models[edit]

Proposed guidelines and strategies[edit]

Please keep this page relatively terse. Discussions might be extended either on talk or on additional pages; generating a lot of Wikipedia: or m: pages would be fine.

Referencing in Wikipedia articles[edit]

We could significantly improve the references and the citation apparatus of various articles. Better referencing would have several benefits. It would enhance:

  1. Accuracy, by encouraging contributors to research the facts rather than writing from memory or stating mere opinions.
  2. Verifiability, by providing readers with the sources of the facts contained in the article.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Connectivity, by providing sources of additional information for those readers that wish to research the topic in more detail.
  6. Neutrality, by citing all relevant authoritative sources.
  7. Objectivity, by, rather than asserting a fact, attributing the assertions of fact to authoritative sources.
  8. Honesty, by properly indicating just what it is that is taken from a public domain source &, if it's the entire article, saying so.

In determining citation guidelines the following general principles are important:

  1. 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.
  2. The guidelines should encourage better "quality" sources.
  3. The guidelines should encourage more references rather than fewer (within reason).
  4. The guidelines should encourage a broad range of types of references (ie., book, journal, Web, etc.).
  5. 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 idea.

Implemention may need to be multi-faceted, sequential, and/or dynamic. Possible useful tools to coordinate such an effort include:

  1. Standards for what are acceptable sources and for a minimum number of sources an article should provide.
    • These might eventually be universal across Wikipedia, 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.
    • Possibly distinct policies on book references, peer-reviewed journal references, magazine and newspaper references, documents from governments or well-known organizations, miscellaneous web references
      • "...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. [And]...what about citations which are exclusively abstracts of unpublished papers? - Amgine [1]
      • "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..." - Slrubenstein
        • "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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. --Modemx 20:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)[2]
          • 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. DGG 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Possibility of articles about any frequently-used sources, either in main article space or in a distinct name space.
      • 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, 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. DGG 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strategic management proposed as a paradigm of a well-referenced article.
      • 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 roughly 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 thoroughly sourced article, it's great. But articles should be both well-sourced, as well as presenting 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).
  2. A mechanism — comparable to Wikipedia:Cleanup and possibly placing Template:Unsourced or something like it on the talk pages — to target pages for such improvement.
    Template:Unsourced would probably work, but the vast majority of Wikipedia articles will have need this. There is a new WikiProject that aims to reference articles on Wikipedia. You could add an article to the "articles being worked on" section, or nominate it to be the biweekly special article. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|]] 03:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. One or more "collaborations of the week" (or month) for improving references and citation apparatus for particular articles.

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?

  1. I note some articles have a footnote each line and some a footnote and reference for each word.

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. Don't sleep clown will eat you (blocked user).

It's getting more scholarly. This collaboration is an excellent idea. --Singkong2005 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem here is mainly the lack of a good, sleek, flexible ref template.
  • 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 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 Jimbo's Principle #3 - 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...
  • Harvard template is bloated and inflexible
  • Anchored (numbered) refs are simply broken. They never worked right.
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 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.
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 (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.
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 could 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. Dysmorodrepanis 11:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time periods[edit]

  1. 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. "As of July 2005, there has been encouragement to note times of creations and edits of Wikipedia articles." (note that the Wikimarkup form of this link is [[As of 2005|As of July 2005]].) Otherwise a future reader has little idea of the currency of the information.

Referencing of Wikipedia articles[edit]

We seem to have consensus that as of November 2004 many Wikipedia 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 literature (or to some other comparable standard). This seems closely related to the goal that some have characterized as "creating Wikipedia 1.0" or stable versions.

  1. Possibility of distinguishing draft articles and vetted articles.
    • Probably what we have now is a perfectly good mechanism for perpetual draft articles, so the question is how to manage vetted articles.
    • Various proposals in Wikipedia:Approval mechanism seem possibly relevant
    • Possible mechanisms for "tagging" vetted versions:
      • Software extensions for this purpose
      • Namespace distinction
      • Pages of pointers to vetted versions
  2. 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")
    • Specific academic qualifications may be required; or alternately a history of good work on Wikipedia in that field.
    • Revealing one's actual identity (vs. strictly an online alias) may be required.
    • Groups might be chosen in a similar manner to how we already choose the ArbCom or Administrators; or alternately in the way we choose Mediators or Barnstar recipients.
    • We might be able to develop a system by which anyone could endorse a particular version of an article; presumably groups could form whose endorsement would carry some weight.
    • 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 Article validation feature coded by Magnus Manske.

See also: Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia

Editorial arbitration[edit]

For discussion see Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration.

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 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.

As vetting, 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.

Possible areas of particular focus:

  1. Modern history and politics
  2. Physics, Biology, Archeology
  3. Difficult-but-trendy theories : Semiotics, feminist and cultural theory, cutting-edge sociology and theoretical economics; philosophy in general
  4. Modern and ancient religion


172 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 candidates to reach a consensus vote on the Wiki. 172 did not intend to indicate that these would be paid positions.

Other suggestions of a more open system, allowing anyone sufficiently active in the field on Wikipedia, or academics with demonstrable experience outside of Wikipedia, to contribute to these editorial discussions, would likely be a smaller and less controversial step.

Please keep comments on the Members list below terse. Use Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/General comments for short comments (several sentences), or the discussion page for longer comments (e.g., with a title).


  1. Neutralitytalk
  2. —No-One Jones (m) 03:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. IZAK 03:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. GeneralPatton 03:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Xed 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Netoholic (talk)
  8. Mackensen (talk) 03:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Adam 04:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC). I am delighted to see someone taking an initiative in this area. What Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Herschelkrustofsky_and_User:Adam_Carr. Adam 05:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Jmabel | Talk 06:41, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  11. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. With some reservations, but I think this is an important step. Ambi 10:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Noel (talk) 13:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) - with some caveats, see the Talk: page.
  14. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:01, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) with nuanced reservations
  15. Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 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 Wikipedia successful.
  17. Amgine, 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.
  18. Slrubenstein 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 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.
  19. Tannin 23:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC). More in spirit than in reality these days, as non-Wikipedia 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 project.
  20. 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 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 User:Herschelkrustofsky, 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. 172 23:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. Danny 23:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  22. Xtra 00:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. Shane King 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 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)
  24. J.K. [[]] 06:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  25. Mustafaa 10:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. Taxman 18:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) I'm in, just saw this.
  27. 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). [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 18:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. Slim 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 Wikipedia special, but there should be some form of expert review available so that the quality of articles can be assessed, rather than there simply being mediation between personalities. What counts is what the readers end up reading and it needs to be accurate, particularly because Wikipedia articles tend to come up early in Google searches. If Wikipedia spreads falsehoods, they'll be spread far and fast.
  29. PedanticallySpeaking
  30. 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. Fred Bauder 12:44, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  31. ChrisG - wiki and quality: they are not incompatible.
  32. MathKnight 16:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  33. Emsworth 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. 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.
  34. RickK 23:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) - I can copyedit and Google search with the best of them.
  35. Maurreen 04:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  36. Lyellin 18:40, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) - Copyediting,here we come.
  37. Moriori - particularly support Emsworth's remarks at 33, coupled with Adam's at 9.
  38. Somthing should be done. What exaclty, I don't know. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
  39. Pedant 00:38, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC) I support factuality in articles, if this forum can help to insure that, I'm all for it.
  40. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀]]
  41. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) In summary, I support a "you can edit almost any article immediately" policy. Contentious articles need a more disciplined editorial policy -- perhaps oversight by a committee, with one editorial committee per restricted page. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  42. Paul August 21:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  43. To echo some other comments, I'm unsure about methods (we aren't 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 Wikipedia. —Tkinias 21:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  44. This is the way to go. Taku 04:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  45. mydogategodshat 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 Wikipedia has been built on.
  46. Zappaz 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 many 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 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. --Zappaz 18:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  47. Apwoolrich 22:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  48. Golbez 18:52, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  49. I make extensive use of bibliographic references. Alterego 21:50, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  50. I'll do everything to fight the Encyclopedia of Rumours movement. --Pjacobi 22:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  51. Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. adamsan 15:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  52. I support both quality and the wiki spirit. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  53. mark 19:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia needs to be trustworthy.
  54. WikiUser 18:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  55. Oldak Quill 01:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  56. E=MC^2 02:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I believe that this is an important step in refining Wikipedia.
  57. Trödel|talk 03:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I like this
  58. Yu Ninjie 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  59. Shane Smith leave a message 15:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) I share the sentiments of most people here, which is that it is important to keep Wikipedia valuable and free by (1) holding all users accountable to basic standards of verifiability and NPOVness and (2) encouraging anybody and everybody to participate
  60. +sj + 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 'schools' of thought when they appear.
  61. 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. Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. nobs 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Definitely needed for the humanities.Reply[reply]
  63. Joaquin Murietta 09:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 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.Reply[reply]
  64. [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I've been meaning to join this for some time, yet keep forgetting. I feel passionately about making Wikipedia credible, and would love to help out.Reply[reply]
  65. SEWilco 05:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Have been making progress on citation methods. Interrupted by ArbCom kangaroo court.Reply[reply]
  66. I'll support anything that improves general article quality, including the use of experts as reviewers. Jeeb 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. 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.--MONGO 10:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. At last, a good idea to help the encyclopedia. Titoxd(?!?) 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Whenever I see a POV dispute, I bring up WP:CITE almost immediately. :-) Finding sources and citing them helps NPOV as well as our credibility as an encyclopedia. --Idont Havaname 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC). This is better than WfEM. We need something like this around here.Reply[reply]
  71. tomf688{talk} 03:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. So many people want something like this, but no one can come up with a proposal that everyone likes. (I can't, either.) — Omegatron 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. CH 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I am focusing on the math/physics pages, and have encountered quite a few problems dealing with various kinds of Wikicruft, some more insiduous than others. I noticed that some members have added comments above which appear inconsistent with the goals of this forum--- what's up with that?Reply[reply]
  74. --Leifern 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Great initiative; we need to keep this alive.Reply[reply]
  75. deeptrivia (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Important for reputation of the encyclopedia.Reply[reply]
  76. Ian Pitchford This is the most important Wikipedia project. --Ian Pitchford 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Count me in. Durova 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Peace Inside 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Jleybov 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC) - hoping to implement some of the requested features in Mediawiki this yearReply[reply]
  80. normxxx| talk email 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/General comments for my comments.Reply[reply]
  81. Kevin baas 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Richard Jensen 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 involving registration and a Board of Review. 11:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. User:Don't sleep clown will eat you I totally support a peer review system where qualified people with expertise in the topic edit those topics,and NOBODY ELSE. (blocked user)
  84. MatthewDBA 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. -- .c o m a Z e ! 11:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I'd like to see us move towards a "Wikipedia Verson 1.0" that passed fact and reference checks, copyedited, and peer-reviewed by topic expertsReply[reply]
  86.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. 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. ---CH 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. great idea. -- Alexander Plank
  89. FrancisTyers 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Singkong2005 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. porges(talk) 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC) I find it odd that the two policies I see most commonly violated are both core content policies.Reply[reply]
  92. ShiraHadasha It remains to be seen whether something so concieved and so dedicated can long endure. --Shirahadasha 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. DGG 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC) If we enforced standards, and removed direct copies from public domain, how much would be left?Reply[reply]
  94. I'd like to join this, I think its a good idea.Richiar 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. I'm still figuring out what this is and what it represents and will lead to, but till then it looks a good idea, provided 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 becomes the drama-rescuer 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. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Pavithran 07:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) - May this suceedReply[reply]
  97.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I support this project wholeheartedly.Reply[reply]
  98. Ǣ0ƞS 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related pages[edit]

Other voluntary associations[edit]

Some Wikipedians have formed voluntary associations to organize various activities on Wikipedia. Consult their pages if you are interested in joining.

On the English Wikipedia[edit]

On Meta[edit]

Quality Management[edit]

A project page to develop an effective quality management system is being started here: