Recently, Adam Carr contributed a well-researched writeup about Wikipedia article quality. It has since been moved to the meta. I am concerned that it will receive little attention on the meta, because relatively few Wikipedians read the meta, and those few that do are not representative of the community.

I believe such discussions should take place in the Wikipedia: or Wikipedia_talk: article spaces, now that these are available, so that the discussion appears in recent changes, and so that it is seen by everyone who may be interested. Apparently there is a standing policy against such discussions in those article spaces. I believe the policy should change.

The meta is useful for discussing the technical arcana, interlanguage issues, and nuts-and-bolts issues of logos and press releases and so forth. But I believe it is a mistake to send general-interest discussions about article content there. All they get is a decent burial.

Louis

I have wasted a bit of time looking for this but can't, could you kindly provide a link?

Fred

[I'm replying both to the list and directly to Louis.]

Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:

Recently, Adam Carr contributed a well-researched writeup about Wikipedia article quality. It has since been moved to the meta. I am concerned that it will receive little attention on the meta, because relatively few Wikipedians read the meta, and those few that do are not representative of the community.

Time was, people put this stuff on subpages of their user page. That should still be kosher; and it's more accessible than [[meta:]].

I'm assuming that his write-up really was specific to [[en:]]. If it was general, then [[meta:]] may yet be the best place for it.

-- Toby