--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
From: wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>
If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at
FA
standard, we'd need
to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer
was allowed to
start from scratch and write a new article, and then
demonstrate to the
community that it was superior to the existing one. Good
writers with
expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive
to begin with the
mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers
for every change
they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts,
or indeed
careful research/writers off.
Precisely. FWIW, this is what I recommended to the scholar I mentioned
earlier (who has written several books on the Jehovah's Witnesses): Go
ahead, announce your intention on the article's talk page and at the
relevant WikiProject, write the article, and then present it to the wider
community for adoption.
I assured him that Wikipedia would welcome the article, once it was
formatted and referenced correctly, over the likely objections of both
the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Witness-bashers frequenting the article.
I haven't heard back from him ... :)
If we want to have scholars contributing, this is an option that has to be
on the table.
Andreas
The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and
what
is the (usually
welcome) by-product.
*Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd
sourcing and
consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put
aside if a
certain article is better written a different way. In these
cases we'll put
up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until
and unless
something better is offered.
*Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created
articles. In which
case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only
in the gaps. If
the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then
this is to be
preferred, and the FA with his superior article must
necessarily go
elsewhere.
I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has
components which
usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing,
no-privileged
editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it
has never defined
which of these is core and which is "the means to the end",
on the occasions
when there is a conflict between choosing one of the
elements over another
we are all at sea.
Scott
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l