-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: 05 February 2011 10:21 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming
for is FA.
Is it?
The quality standard FA writers are aiming at is clear, I'm not sure that's the aim of the rest of the project. The rest of the project is governed by crowd sourcing and consensus, and tends to operate in a different manner.
FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams.
Precisely. It is also the case why FA tend to be on more obscure subjects, where it is possible for a small group (or usually one writer) to commandeer the article with little squealing. It is also possible here to totally re-write whatever one finds (if indeed there is an existing article).
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.
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l