This is a proposal creating a new project or group dedicated to ensuring quality content persists on Wikipedia. Long term content is susceptible to vandalism and mistakes that are inserted unwillingly or purposefully into the article. By using a few simple tools and a vetting system, articles can be protected from damage or deterioration by a system of quality reviews and procedures to ensure that information is correct and peer checked over a long duration so that content remains accurate.
System Overview
editCreated a Wikiproject or other forum is essential for this to work. The new page would list the rules, details and link to a current list of nominations for review and previous reviews that could require additional vetting or double checking by scholars, experts, or other knowledgeable individuals.
The review system
editArticles are reviewed similar to Good Article or Featured article processes, in which articles are primarily reviewed on bases of accuracy and claims. This process will ensure that at the current version, the article is free from content mistakes, libel, false claims and accurately and neutrally depicts the subject.
If the article needs work
editIf the article has problems, tags can be added as needed and a comment can be made to the talk page or the nominator to fix these. Correcting the errors are not the responsibility of the expert, but pointing out said errors would assist in correcting the article, if the errors are removed the reviewer can choose to approve it after the changes. If approved it will be added to the list and noted.
If the article is accepted
editPassing the review will result in several things, the current version of the article which has been accepted will be 'archived' on a listing page with key information as to the reviewer and a diff of the article at that stage. Current versions of the page (updated by bot) would list the current version, the diff showing the changes between the current and the approved review and the reviews themselves.
| Article | Differences | Review notes |
|---|---|---|
| Current Article1 | Differences between | Approved review |
| Example2 | Differences Example2 | Approved Example 2 (Date/Reviewer) |
| Subject | Diff | Last review, previous reviews 3, 2, 1 |