ConexionsProject

 -- warning, this link goes to some random 'make your own module' page on a site which has no editorial or quality control I can see

From their FAQ: "In order to help users find the materials they need, we are developing a system that enables anyone (individuals, institutions, professional societies, and so on) to set up their own review process that sifts through the entire repository and directs users to the content judged to be "high quality". It is basically analogous to the "peer review" systems used in academic journals, but more scalable. We are currently experimenting with a range of different approaches, including systems similar to the recommendations on Amazon.com and Ebay and social software systems like Flickr and del.icio.us." --DR

Great. 'we are currently developing (but haven't yet implemented) a system which enables random people who know nothing to rank the work of other random people who know nothing, using systems similar to other systems that allow idiots to coment on the work of idiots'. I'm reassured no end. --UnSigned??

I guess that's one interpretation of the above.  Another might be that Brazil, or some other country wanting to reduce the cost of tertiary education, might appoint an editorial board to review courses they intend to make available to print, that universities in Texas might do the same (but review a different sub-set of available courses, or give someone of the same ones different rankings), and that users of the website will have rankings from multiple overlapping review boards they can take into account when deciding for themselves the quality of a course. --DR

And I'll have my aerial bacon butty to go, please.

Woe is us.  A wiki linking to something else that is like a wiki.  The content there is locked to be editable only by its author, who is a poster on this wiki, so....  --Vitenka (Sure, don't cite it as a source)

Yep. The author of that module is the OP of this page too. --RobHu

You'll have to remind me of his philosophical qualifications?

You need special qualifications to put things on ToothyWiki now? I think you've confused this place with the Encyclopedia Britannica. --RobHu

You should need philosophical qualifications to write about philosophy for a website which is trying to pass itself off as a serious academic resource; surely that's only common sense? You don't need qualification to put things on Toothy Wiki, you just get ridiculed when you display your ignorance.

Not at all.  See the ToothyWikiEntranceExam  --DR

ChiarkPerson sometimes does that, then gets disappointed. Also, he never signs, so people don't realise it's only him again. - MoonShadow

Indeed.  It looked a fun thing to get involved in - they provide free text books, which can then be printed 'at cost'.--DR

And I bet they're worth every penny. --UnSigned??

Whoever you are, please sign your comments. It is extremely rude and confusing to not do so. --RobHu

Tsk Tsk "worth every penny".  That's extremely 20th century thinking.  Are the internet movie database or wikipedia valueless resources because you pay no more than the boost you give their advertisers? --DR

IMDB is not free, it's advertising-funded, and has some quality control. Wikipedia is worthless, yes. --ChiarkPerson

If I understand you correctly, then, you are claiming that ANY online resource that does not have named paid editors is worthless (as in "unreliable"), and that it is impossible to set up a peer reviewed system (non-anonymous) that is of any use unless there is a paid component to it? --DR

Well, yes, of course you can't trust it if the editors aren't named and verified -- how will you know that they're qualified and not just [[utter frauds]]? As for the paid aspect, I find it difficult to believe enough highly-qualified peopel will be willing to donate enough of their precious time to trawl through the mountains of dross to fin a couple of flawed diamonds, and then polish them up as best they can, without some form of reward. --ChiarkPerson

And yet a large part of the IMDB was contributed BEFORE it went commercial.  And academic journals, while paying editors and definitely paying publishers, have most of the actual peer reviewing done for them by academics who are certainly not being paid a high hourly wage for the task.  Not to mention the physics pre-print servers.  --DR

ChiarkPerson has commented on his view of things produced for free in the past. --MoonShadow