Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Peer Endorsement: Difference between revisions
Add Related scientific research section (Theo 2026-08-15) |
Category cleanup: remove Category:Migration June 2026 (founder order 2026-09-03) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{ExpertIntro|Initial hypothesis for contract validation: endorsement would be the recognition of a template by lawyers who take named responsibility and are prepared to defend it, inspired by Wikipedia's peer review. Anyone could contribute; all templates stay freely accessible with a maturity mention. Only endorsed contracts are intended to deploy in the apps; others remain usable at the user's own risk.}} | {{ExpertIntro|Initial hypothesis for contract validation: endorsement would be the recognition of a template by lawyers who take named responsibility and are prepared to defend it, inspired by Wikipedia's peer review. Anyone could contribute; all templates stay freely accessible with a maturity mention. Only endorsed contracts are intended to deploy in the apps; others remain usable at the user's own risk.}} | ||
{{ArticleSummary| | |||
* [[#what-is-it|What is it?]] | |||
* [[#how-it-works|How it works on WikiDeal]] | |||
* [[#endorsed-vs-goodwill|Endorsed contracts and all other templates]] | |||
* [[#see-also|See also]] | |||
* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]] | |||
}} | |||
__NOTOC__ | |||
= Peer Endorsement = | = Peer Endorsement = | ||
| Line 38: | Line 45: | ||
* '''All other templates''' would remain available on a goodwill basis. They would generally be much better than contracts invented from scratch by amateurs: a template drafted collectively and refined through feedback tends to be better than one written by a single person, and an imperfect contract is better than no contract at all. They would however be used at the user's own risk, without a guarantee of full legal alignment or of the absence of loopholes. And even when a text itself has no loophole, gaps often appear in the way it is applied. | * '''All other templates''' would remain available on a goodwill basis. They would generally be much better than contracts invented from scratch by amateurs: a template drafted collectively and refined through feedback tends to be better than one written by a single person, and an imperfect contract is better than no contract at all. They would however be used at the user's own risk, without a guarantee of full legal alignment or of the absence of loopholes. And even when a text itself has no loophole, gaps often appear in the way it is applied. | ||
<span id="see-also"></span> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
<span id=" | <span id="state-of-the-art"></span> | ||
== | == State of the art == | ||
Lawyer endorsement of contract models relates to research on information asymmetry, signalling, reputation and the transformation of legal services. These references inform the hypothesis; they do not validate it. | Lawyer endorsement of contract models relates to research on information asymmetry, signalling, reputation and the transformation of legal services. These references inform the hypothesis; they do not validate it. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 60: | ||
'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Validation-Endorsement|Validation and Endorsement]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|Collaborative Contract Editing]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Subscription|The Subscription Model]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|All innovations]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Main|R&D Portal]] | '''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Validation-Endorsement|Validation and Endorsement]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|Collaborative Contract Editing]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Subscription|The Subscription Model]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|All innovations]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Main|R&D Portal]] | ||
[[Category:Innovation]] | [[Category:Innovation]] | ||
<!-- visible --> | <!-- visible --> | ||