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