This is the term I'm using to describe the content portion of PeerReview. This is a concept given much regard on SoftSecurity, but at some neglect of the content and orginator assessment which is also a necessary component. -- KarstenSelf
I make the assumption that attracting the appropriate peers and encouraging disruptive peers to leave is best left to a separate process, involving marketing and community norms. Reviewing material is the only significant part of the PeerReview pattern because you can only work with the peers you have. Moreover, it's justified if the community standards are low to have low quality content. Compare http://www.geekizoid.com to other collective publications.
On the other hand, there is a real situation of where community standards are high but the community capabilities are low. In those situations, you have two possible causes. One, there might not be enough composite capabilities available in the populace to accomplish the goal. In that case, you can't ever succeed without improving your populace's skillset. Two,the process by which the populace collaborates is faulty.
To the latter, I compare Wiki:WaterfallMethodology against Wiki:ExtremeProgramming. Waterfall is a whole order weaker than XP because it is a linear process so it has limited interaction between components, whereas XP can get by with fewer process elements (thus making it lightweight) because it has high interprocess reinforcement.
Hypermedia has the advantage of facilitating higher order systems because hypermedia is inheritantly graph capable. But it's more than that. If you look at the works of WardCunningham, you will notice the mastery. His works are systems of interlocking processes:
Even his works are interdependent.
I bring this up not as a tangent but as the point. Often individuals are incapable by themselves, but it is only through the interaction with many people that a society can progress. The weaknesses of one are made up by the strengths of others. It is self-defeating to confound this process, but that's what most people think in North America and less-so in Western society do. Hence the growth of cubicles in the corporate world.
PeerReview is one important interaction that's necessary to make up for the mistakes of others. The real difference between me and most other people, I guess, is that I prefer coming up with systems that get past mistakes whereas others are obsessed with security. Most damage comes from mistakes. -- SunirShah