It's often helpful when defining the requirements for a product or service to describe what's not intended.  I've seen the Peer-to-Peer Review Project, and while it is certainly an interesting an worthwhile endeavor, it's not what I'm looking for.  The Peer-to-Peer Review Project is a way to distribute the task of performing movie-review-style reviews of entire weblogs.

In the Peer-to-Peer Review Project, you submit your entire weblog to be reviewed by someone, then are given a weblog to review.  Once your review of the other site is submitted, someone reviews your weblog, and the process ends.  The review is of the entire weblog, and reviews are performed after publication of the content being reviewed.

What I intend is different.  Reviews would consist of editing an individual post, rather than expressing an opinion about an entire weblog.  Reviews are performed before posts are published, giving the original author time to incorporate changes (or not) before the post is seen by anyone else.

10:06:32 AM   

Imagine a system whereby peer reviewers can automatically locate each other.  Further, imagine that this system automates the workflow of requesting and submitting reviews.  I'd like to be able to review (and be reviewed) on a post-by-post basis, so the system would need an accounting mechanism: when I perform a satisfactory review, I have earned "credit," and am eligible to be reviewed.

I don't know anything about trust metrics, but it seems like a cooperative, distributed system like this would need to employ some mechanism to discourage cheating or abuse.

9:45:41 AM   

In peer review, somebody reads your writing before publication and provides feedback.  It can be technical (grammar, spelling, fact-checking) or more editorial in nature ("this is too long").  I'm not aware of a weblog in which posts are subjected to a peer-review process before publication.

(I believe Kuro5hin does this, but it's not a weblog.  Kuro5hin's review process, while remarkably effective, is in some respects centralized.)

I would be willing to review someone else's work in exchange for getting my work reviewed.  Maybe not everything I write, but some of it.  I think my weblog would benefit from review.  The question is, how to locate someone who'd be willing to take on this task?  And how to make the process of locating a reviewer scale to the entire weblog community?  (More to come.)

9:32:56 AM   

I don't normally write about weblogging (at least, not here on my weblog).  But something just occurred to me. 

Weblogs and news aggregators do a fine job of decentralizing writing and publishing.  And they decentralize part of the editorial process -- the feedback loop between aggregators and weblogs makes it possible for editorial decisions (e.g., What should be published?) to be spread among members of the community.  But one thing is lacking: peer review.  (More to come.)

9:30:02 AM   

Thwarting camcorder-toting movie pirates. Former Divx engineers are developing a technology that could thwart low-tech movie pirates who use camcorders in theaters. [CNET News.com]

The dorks behind (the original) Divx, the posterchild for DRM failure in the marketplace, are at it again.  They've realized that selling to consumers is hopeless since consumers don't want technology that takes their rights away.  So these guys are focusing on selling to Hollywood.  Har.

This is the first of what will no doubt be many failed attempts to "plug the analog hole."  They want to exploit the differences in the way camcorders and the human eye operate in order to make movies that can't be taped in the theater.

By the way, this may be the best writing I've seen from CNET.  In an effort to be balanced and provide background, it manages to present most of the objections I would have raised myself.

9:18:03 AM