[[user:Dbachmann]] introduced the term "Main article fixation" at [[talk:Germany]] for a phenomenon that, he and I think, is an impediment for the improvement of Wikipedia. He noticed that editors are fixated on arguing over every word on the main article [[Germany]] though the article is of reasonable quality.
Editors seem to forget that [[Germany]]'s ancillary articles like [[Geography of Germany]] are in a sorry state and in dire need of competent editors.
I have the impression that this is a general phenomenon at Wikipedia, not confined to [[Germany]]. The reason seems to be that editors think that if their POV or positive fact is mentioned in a main article then people will read it. I think editors forget that people who are interested in a certain subject will also click on the more detailed article that offers more facts and divers POVs
I hope that editors who read this will help to distract attention of other editors from the main articles to the ancillary articles to enable the overall better quality of Wikipedia.
Thanks. Andries K.D.
Andries Krugers Dagneaux wrote
I hope that editors who read this will help to distract attention of other editors from the main articles to the ancillary articles to enable the overall better quality of Wikipedia.
I definitely agree with the main point. The basic task of Wikipedia at present seems to be to extend its coverage, of good average articles, to the point where it really can be called 'comprehensive'. There are still many topics, for example, taught at undergraduate level at universities, that have scanty or no explanation. I have noticed, to my pleasure, that short articles in the humanities (where I have no particular expertise) that I have contributed to, do tend to be upgraded, on a time scale of six months or so. Still, we need much more.
On the specific matters of people nit-picking in main articles, and trying to push their points of view, that is to some extent just human nature (or at least Wikipedian nature). Main articles afford a measure of recognition to authors, too. With the expansion of WP, there is less recognition-per-person, I think. Therefore I don't such 'fixation' can easily be removed.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
There are still many topics, for example, taught at undergraduate level at universities, that have scanty or no explanation.
Does this imply that traditional encyclopedias tend to cover all undergraduate university topics?
Please don't take this to mean that I think Wikipedia should follow their example, or indeed anything else I haven't said.
Timwi