On 13/09/06, Nathaniel spangineer@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I would be hesitant to judge the overall FAC process based on the interaction between Francesco and FAC regulars. Rare are FACs that get so heated (I recall the GNAA and Bulbasaur FACs, and that's it). In this case, it seems both sides (I include myself in this) got defensive when they perceived that their opinions were under attack (for Francesco, that his writing was poor, and for Tony/Sandy/Me, that the standards we've been applying to FACs for months are faulty). In the end (which occurred after Francesco's initial complaints on WT:FAC), I think pretty much everyone agreed that the article was at least somewhat better than it was when the nomination started. And everyone was much more calm, that's for sure.
I think a process which tests Wikipedia content creators to destruction, and whose advocates actually think this is a good thing for a process to do, is prima facie pathological and needs removal as soon as possible. It's way too damaging to the community.
As for people disappearing and not striking their objections, yes, that happens, but in my experience Raul usually ignores these after several days if the nominator makes a note under the objection saying that he/she has addressed the objection. Of course, sometimes it doesn't work out that way, especially for nominations receiving few comments.
I'm wondering if FAC shouldn't be officially deprecated - it could be preserved as a source of quirkies for the front page, but it certainly seems less and less like anything to do with general Wikipedia quality.
- d.
On 9/13/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think a process which tests Wikipedia content creators to destruction, and whose advocates actually think this is a good thing for a process to do, is prima facie pathological and needs removal as soon as possible. It's way too damaging to the community.
Again, Hilary Putnam is one example--we're regularly pumping out 50+ FAs a month, so one loud complaint every few months doesn't suggest to me that the entire system is broken. On the contrary, FAC has encouraged many editors to write better articles (including myself). Perhaps it would be better if we were all willing to work toward something with purely altruistic goals, but I don't see that happening any time soon--the status of FA gives both a sense of closure and a sense of accomplishment, and for many those are powerful motivators.
Furthermore, I know of no advocates of FAC who think it's ok to maliciously test content creators to destruction (AGF?). There are many, however, myself included, who aren't going to sugarcoat our comments just to make people feel good. If an article is poorly written, I'm going to say so, providing evidence for my claim and being ready discuss the issue with anyone who disagrees with my judgment. Honest feedback means that people's feelings can get hurt, but a mature response to that is either acceptance or discussion regarding the validity of the feedback. In a collaborative project, editors must be allowed to give negative feedback, and they must be mature enough to accept it when they are on the receiving end. There's a difference between polite yet direct honesty and "destruction", and if there isn't, I don't see how that's the fault of the person giving the feedback.
Nathaniel