There's a frighteningly large amount of misinformation being thrown around here, so let me attempt to inject some real information into the discussion.
First, we're promoting slightly more than one article per day (after 280 something days in 2005, we've promoted something like 295 articles). So at the present rate, we could have a new, different featured article on the main page every day forever. (Oh, and Mero, last week, we promoted 9 featured articles, not 4)
Second, the FAC process is designed to expose flaws in an article. That's why all objections have to be actionable (and, corrospondingly, specific enough so as to be actionable). Someone has to fix the problems in order for an article to be promoted, and that job usually falls to the nominator. I do not like the idea of forcing the reviewers to fix the article - that's just a bad idea.
As for Tony's idea - well, I don't want to put too fine a point of this because I respect Tony, but his idea (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/029601.html) is terrible. Unredeemably bad, in fact. The FAC is a sane, well-mainted part of Wikipedia *THAT ACTUALLY GENERATES GOOD ARTICLES*. So, let's scrap the process and make it more like Votes for Deletion, eh? Oh, wonderful idea... It introduce a massive bureacracy to what is a rather effecient process (and don't take my word on that -- library science graduate students studied the FAC process and concluded that it "is not ideal, but it does seem relatively rigorous."- http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~stvilia/papers/qualWiki.pdf -- remind me again how many research studies have concluded that the VFD/AFD works well?) Tony's proposed changes represent a huge step backwards. Consider the example articles Tony pointed at. If those articles "Exemplify Wikipedia's best articles", then he has rather low expectations. The featured article criteria are the standards we hold articles to, and every single one those articles is lacking (as Geni pointed out). Is holding articles to a high standard a bad thing? I would hope not.
-Mark
On 10/3/05, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
Consider the example articles Tony pointed at. If those articles "Exemplify Wikipedia's best articles", then he has rather low expectations. The featured article criteria are the standards we hold articles to, and every single one those articles is lacking (as Geni pointed out). Is holding articles to a high standard a bad thing? I would hope not.
Actually I don't claim that those articles exemplify anything except acceptable content that would be okay on the main page. I don't think much of featured article, as you're aware, and I regard the process as largely a waste of time.
I have a different view of Wikipedia's strengths--I think we're really good at producing so-so, useful but not perfect articles, and that we should spend energy trying to maximise our production rate at this level. I view the FA process as masturbatory, self-congratulatory, and of low impace on the project as a whole.
I also feel that it's also a little dishonest to put such massage content on the main page, when so much of the best that Wikipedia has to offer comprises mediocrely written articles that tell you pretty much what you need to know, and generally do it in less than a screenful of information and without pointless fripperies such as pictures.
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/3/05, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
Consider the example articles Tony pointed at. If those articles "Exemplify Wikipedia's best articles", then he has rather low expectations. The featured article criteria are the standards we hold articles to, and every single one those articles is lacking (as Geni pointed out). Is holding articles to a high standard a bad thing? I would hope not.
Actually I don't claim that those articles exemplify anything except acceptable content that would be okay on the main page. I don't think much of featured article, as you're aware, and I regard the process as largely a waste of time.
I have a different view of Wikipedia's strengths--I think we're really good at producing so-so, useful but not perfect articles, and that we should spend energy trying to maximise our production rate at this level. I view the FA process as masturbatory, self-congratulatory, and of low impace on the project as a whole.
I also feel that it's also a little dishonest to put such massage content on the main page, when so much of the best that Wikipedia has to offer comprises mediocrely written articles that tell you pretty much what you need to know, and generally do it in less than a screenful of information and without pointless fripperies such as pictures.
(I pretty much agree.)
How about just random articles?
Serving the "best" articles as features serves no purpose for me, other than polishing our own shield, which serves us how?
The FAs are likely to be interesting and well written yes, but unlikely to motivate any improvements to them through casual peer review, unless a motivated expert with time happens along, which is rare.
This "average user" peer review could be better directed and generate more feedback and improvements if the articles were instead randomly chosen from the new stock. The probability that the random visitor would contribute to them would be greater and the average "image" we give, would reflect the actual truth of what an average wikipedia contribution has to offer. A dip in our image perhaps, but also a rapid rise in contributions?
Especially new, young articles should be "hardened" thus. When the fixes per readers -ratio falls below a certain level, the articles should be considered more mature, or "hardened", and be less exposed to random visitors.
I would much rather expose the weaknesses of wikipedia content to the eyes of masses, than just the crown jewels, as it is the masses that make wikipedia what it is and this would get the maximum benefit. As for striving for excellence and crown jewels, perhaps Google might sponsor some competitions?
Not that any of this has a great deal of significance one way or the other, IMO. :-)
// Jei
On 03/10/05, Jei jei@cc.hut.fi wrote:
This "average user" peer review could be better directed and generate more feedback and improvements if the articles were instead randomly chosen from the new stock. The probability that the random visitor would contribute to them would be greater and the average "image" we give, would reflect the actual truth of what an average wikipedia contribution has to offer. A dip in our image perhaps, but also a rapid rise in contributions?
We have this, sort of - Did You Know on the mainpage. It's a short exposure - only maybe six hours - and it's not as well known as it might be, but it gets interesting short-but-decent articles out onto the main page for traffic.
There are limitations to this - it will only take articles of a minimum standard, though not a well defined one ("readable, not too short"), and it only uses new articles... but it does do it.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
The main problem with decent articles is that most of them fail to cite sources, which makes them hard to verify.
I don't see the FA process as a problem. They aspire to a high standard which is a good thing in my opinion. If people are interested enough to expand a subject, it doesn't need to be on the front page, they'll surf across it themselves.
--Mgm [[Wikipedia:Article rescue contest]] (Help fix deletion candidates to a decent or even featured level!)