On 4/22/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 4/22/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
As an example, I've been involved in a bit of
a dispute over at
[[Transhumanism]] where an editor who's done a lot of work on the
article has now declared it to be "finished", and has been rather
aggressive in reverting further changes because he believes new
additions that aren't up to the same standards as existing material
reduce the overall quality of the article. With stable version flagging,
we could mark the version that got FA status and then people could work
freely on the article without fear of disruption until a new and
improved FA-quality version ensued.
To use your example to explain my feeling on the matter, we *already*
can mark the version that got FA status. In fact, it's already
marked. If you click on [show] next to the featured article message,
you can see quite plainly that
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&oldid=53177243
is when the article received FA status.
Could we show by default the featured article and make people click
through to the work in progress? Yes, although I'm sure it's
debatable whether or not we should. If we did that, would this
appease the person who's agressive in reverting changes which s/he
feels is making the article worse? Probably not. Even if so, are
there that many featured articles in the first place? No, so then
you've gotta have good articles, and semi-good articles, and
non-vandalised articles, etc. Could this be implemented well?
Probably, though it would take an awful lot of time and energy to
maintain even after the technical parts are implemented. Will it be
implemented well? I doubt it.
Anthony
The problem with this, imo, is that no matter how excellent a FA is, when it
is placed on the front page, it is greatly improved by the large variety of
new editors who see the article and add, subtract, or clarify information,
or just comment on aspects of the article. My thinking is that it may be a
stable version, but the best version of the article comes a week or two
after it has been on the front page.
Good article criteria is much looser. There are some awful good articles.
I am removing some in the past few days that have problems. There are some
FAs that need reviewed, but not truly awful, imo. So, not GAs at all, just
FAs, but still, they improve with becoming featured on the main page.
KP