On 5/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/05/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately that doesn't reflect the
reality of things
Which is why I said "in theory".
I'm well aware that practice doesn't
work that way, but it should still be the goal of the FA system to be
more inclusive and try and achieve the theory.
Perhaps, but FAC quite deliberately and with forethought crank up the
requirements so that FAs stay "best of the best".
And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that GA lost sight of
its original purpose very early on, and became a mini-FA. I've had decent
articles on subjects where not much can be written because of lacking
sources rejected from GA - even in its first few months - and so I've given
up completely on getting such articles recognised as being "good quality,
but can't really go anywhere because they don't have sources or for some
other reason can't make FA". In the end, these articles cannot be
distinguished from the rest of the tripe that is normally on Wikipedia, and
as such complicates things when, say, we want to compile articles
illustrating the breadth of our coverage, since this practice effectively
accentuates systemic bias.