Charles Matthews wrote:
geni wrote:
Our featured content is given a much higher profile than our lists of
editors by edit count.
Indeed. And rightly so - star articles matter more to the project than putative "star editors". Which is why I regret attempts to leverage FA and DYK into a surrogate for a star system. One of the nice things about Wikipedia editing is that there are many ways to be a "star" measured by self-esteem. One can be a star merger of articles and know it, without having to have that on any list.
Heh, that strikes a chord.
Not that I feel a star in any way, but one of the proudest acheivements in terms of mainspace content, which I will treasure to my heart as long as the page is not deleted, is the "rescue" of the article that started life as an hatchet-job by the title of [[The Bush Dynasty]] or something very close to that ilk, but was (not solely by my offices) transformed into a comprehensive list of families who have had an extended political life, where-ever around the globe they may have lived.
I think the parable of the mustard seed is well remembered.
And as I have said (in other fora), I am clearly saddened that the articles rescue could never have happened under the current fervent and edged editing happening on the English Wikipedia project. A fact that I both deplore and am saddened deeply by.
By the way, "bigger" is fundamentally good. It's a point about databases I learned elsewere : "you can look stuff up here" is a bit dull, but a database generous enough that you start searching it in ways new to you becomes a friend.
Charles
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen