Design/Archive/Wikimedia User Interface/Concepts/Expertpedia

The following is a concept by User:TheDJ. Enhancing, commenting, creating mockups and forking is encouraged !

Expertpedia is an idea that I have had for a while to bridge the gap between 'amateurism' of Wikipedia and the 'old world' of experts. Think of it as the intersection of Wikipedia, Quora and Google Knol. The project consists of:

Identities

Confirmed/verified identities for Subject Matter Experts (SME's). (abuse prevention, transparency)
Public profile pages for these SME's hosted on a separate project. (distinct, transparency)
The profiles are connected to the different publications, identifiers and other scientific connections of experts, h-index etc. [Think: Wikidata+Reasonator+feeds] (transparency, reputation)
The project/profile will publicly list all reviews left on Wikipedia (transparency)

Community

Experts are required to organize themselves in (private) groups like "MIT" or "Nature magazine" etc... You can/should be part of multiple groups. (maximum?)
Experts will have peer voting/scoring on each others contributions. (reputation)
Individual scores (and who awarded them) will only be visible inside the group. (this creates motivation for keeping your group clean and high quality)
Outside your group, people only see the group score for the groups you are a part of. (you can only achieve success as a group ? not quite figured this out yet. Want to avoid promotional crap, but don't want to deny people individual reputation... )

Wikipedia participation

This leverages the success of Wikipedia, to bring experts into the movement.
Initial low participation would not be a problem for either project's success this way, but more participation would easily scale.
The two rather distinct groups of amateurs vs. professionals are brought together by keeping them separate (distinct), but by giving them a dedicated communication opportunity and differing tasks (review vs processing review).
Experts can leave 'comments' or 'reviews' on specific revisions of Wikimedia pages (Wiktionary, Wikipedia etc). These would be exposed as a 'building blocks' on our 'knowledge graph'. At the bottom of an article you could see for instance a block "Expert opinion" that would link to these comments. I've also been calling this part the "Expert wall".
Wikimedia audience can "like" these opinions/reviews. But only if Wikimedians have verified email addresses and registered their "Real name". This to prevent abuse/badgering etc.
Ideally these expert comments would actually be like comment bubbles on sentences in the articles. You could expose them in Edit mode, in order to improve an article. (Mark as resolved?). (Probably requires full parsoid based contentmodel for all revisions.)
Many of the things I mention here are to prevent either 'Twitter abuse' and/or 'AFTv5 low quality comments' or 'Citizendium desert'.

Original content

Very much a follow-up idea, not a first step:

Experts can publish their own topic articles as "Expert articles" on Expertpedia. This will look a lot like Google Knol honestly.
In the future, possibly extend this towards publishing paper's with original research ?
Articles by top peer reviewed experts will be available from the bottom of a Wikipedia article [another 'building block'] (exposure). Scarcity will encourage diversification.

See what I did there ? I created a platform for peer review, tertiary sources and possibly one day original research by experts. All in an open and free ecosystem. With a starting point and a growth path. It's awesome :) —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refined some points —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 13:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]