Yeah, I know what Cleanup is about -- I started the dang thing (kind of commandeering it from Cimon Avaro IIRC). DGMW, continued proper diversification is going to help a lot. But that doesnt change the fact that (as we were talking about before *all the OT about how [[cute]] our tiny progeny are*) some wider reforms are needed to scale up guidance to match growth:
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_reform ( WP:DRR )
Its just a stub ATP and it and it needs a lot of work, but when people get their ideas filled it I think there will be something to talk about and base some polls/votes on how to proceed.
(Parents may now continue their boasting.) SV
--- Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The only reason for specialization is that currently {{cleanup}} is applied to hundreds and hundreds of articles, many of which are not very high-profile and thus not high-priority. I don't think it's the end-all solution but it seemed like a reasonable change to make.
It seems to me that cleanup in general has two purposes: one, to indicate that it is known that a particular article is in a state of disrepair and to help encourage people who stumble across that article to repair it. The second is to give people interested in generally improving Wikipedia the ability to find articles which could use attention.
The advantage of a little specialization would, I believe, be to aid the latter usage more than the former. All of the characters and topics in the "priority" category are also so well known that there are literally dozens of books written on them, they are present in every other encyclopedia available, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of webpages on them. Writing a biography of [[Bill Gates]] takes no specialized knowledge or training. I was able to add a substantial amount to the article just by cutting and pasting content from the other articles we have relating to Microsoft (Microsoft, History of Microsoft Windows, and United States v. Microsoft, specifically). That took about 15 minutes worth of work. This is stuff *anyone* can do if they want to.
"If they want to" is of course the operative part. Specialization can be enabling -- *if* someone wants to work on a general article, it's a good way to direct them to things which need attention -- but it does not compel action in and of itself. That's a bigger question, and worth thinking about seriously, though I don't have any specific ideas regarding it at the moment, personally.
FF
On 10/7/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Further specialization in process may help, but
thats
only part of it. Some would say its just more
"process
creep", and I tend to think the truth somewhere in
the
middle between process upgrades and guidance
upgrades.
IAC I think I need to apologise for my earlier comment, "please forgive us..." which was indeed a
bit
snippy (though quite edited down from what I had
in
the draft :|). Our traditional proper response to anyone has traditionally been "{{sofixit}}" and it should remain so, regardless of who makes the criticism. There are in fact only two--exactly two--kinds of people in this world: Those who edit Wikipedia and those who dont.
And furthermore, I think ATP focusing on
particular
articles ("the pick on a crappy article game" - Flcello) at this point is rather useless, when
there
are indeed bigger fish to fry --considering my
opening
point, namely that stuff needs' be done.
Sincerely, SV
--- Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's the list I was thinking of. The cleanup process is currently so bogged down that it's hard to know what needs to
be
done, though. In the meantime, I've created a template -- {{cleanup-priority}}, which currently is a cleanup tag for any articles
which
are of sub-par quality on that list (and should only be limited
to
that list, I think), hopefully it will help focus things a
bit.
(If people disagree with the "prioritization", well, they can argue
that
on the list itself -- if we have such a list, and take it at least partially seriously, then I think using it as a base for a prioritization scheme is a good idea).
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com