On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Is it helping the encyclopaedia get written? As long as they don't excessively game the system, draw attention away from other articles, then I would say yes. Wikipedia isn't a charity or an ideology - it's a job we have to get done, by one means or by another. If we had the funds, we would pay people to write articles. As it is, we have to motivate them however we can.
Don't you agree?
I don't think this is a point that is worth debating. By and large, people who make it their goal to feature a lot of articles improve Wikipedia, so they're good in my book. I'm brining up food for thought that only makes sense in the context of the discussion, not as its own meta-debate.
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
50% of the population has an IQ less than 100. An arbitrary percentage chosen much as defining an FA to be in the top 0.1% of articles would be.
Personally, I think we should stick with defining fixed criteria for FAs, and considering Wikipedia complete when 100% of articles are FAs.
Well, good luck getting those criteria defined. (/not sarcasm)
Ryan