Come to think of it, Good Articles as a separate distinctin is rather irrelevant in the entire scheme of things. Sure, you identify an article as being "Good". But after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere. At least featured articles are actually "featured."
Perhaps the solution, given its shortcomings, is to abolish "Good Articles".
Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT cdthieme@gmail.com
I don't see how it'd be useful to abolish GAs. GAs, imo, point out some of our better work, which still need polishing to become our BEST (FAs). Personally, whenever I write an article, my aim is usually an article that is well-written enough to be presentable as a GA. And quite on the contrary to "after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere", because I can say that, at least from the perspective of the tropical cyclones wikiproject (WPTC), we try to further our GAs up to A-class and FAs. Maybe not so for other projects, but GA definitely plays a role within WPTC.
--Chacor
On 12/01/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Come to think of it, Good Articles as a separate distinctin is rather irrelevant in the entire scheme of things. Sure, you identify an article as being "Good". But after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere. At
least featured articles are actually "featured."
Perhaps the solution, given its shortcomings, is to abolish "Good Articles".
Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT cdthieme@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
God, why is everyone trying to delete everything for no reason? I can understand Esperanza, but then Concordia, Birthday Commitee, and now Good Articles have all been attempted to be ridden. Do we just want to get rid of things slightly broken to prove a point?
On 1/11/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how it'd be useful to abolish GAs. GAs, imo, point out some of our better work, which still need polishing to become our BEST (FAs). Personally, whenever I write an article, my aim is usually an article that is well-written enough to be presentable as a GA. And quite on the contrary to "after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere", because I can say that, at least from the perspective of the tropical cyclones wikiproject (WPTC), we try to further our GAs up to A-class and FAs. Maybe not so for other projects, but GA definitely plays a role within WPTC.
--Chacor
On 12/01/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Come to think of it, Good Articles as a separate distinctin is rather irrelevant in the entire scheme of things. Sure, you identify an article as being "Good". But after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere. At
least featured articles are actually "featured."
Perhaps the solution, given its shortcomings, is to abolish "Good Articles".
Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT cdthieme@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/11/07, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
God, why is everyone trying to delete everything for no reason? I can understand Esperanza, but then Concordia, Birthday Commitee, and now Good Articles have all been attempted to be ridden. Do we just want to get rid of things slightly broken to prove a point?
Maybe people just want to clean up the Wikipedia namespace? It doesn't have much in the way of content guidelines or anything.
--Ryan
On 1/11/07, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe people just want to clean up the Wikipedia namespace? It doesn't have much in the way of content guidelines or anything.
Policy decisions via deletion seem to be the favored mode, sometimes.
-Matt