I couldn't have said it better myself. I think by now that some series of articles should be updated together so that they are all featured. For example: nations of the world, US presidents, British monarchs, etc.
There's plenty of information that we have, and plenty that we've overlooked. Coordinated efforts to bring articles up to featured status need emphasis. The Collaborations of the Week are a good start, but the track record of past CotW's is poor.
--Ryan
From: Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net Subject: [WikiEN-l] Taking your eyes off the ball
I'm going to grouse a bit.
I think far, far too much attention gets paid to the worst articles on Wikipedia - the studs, the vanity articles, the stuff of debatable notability (schools!!) while not nearly enough effort goes into making crappy articles into good ones.
People on AFD love to argue about the crappiest articles. (It also tends to spill over to this mailing list) On the other side of the spectrum, the percentage of featured articles (number of featured articles / total number of articles) has been rapidly declining since March. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_statistics). And yet no one seems care. Sometime this month, percentage of featured articles will drop below 0.1% -- less than 1 article in 1000 being a featured article.
So while our article count is exploding [due to a massive influx of less-than-steller new articles.... think - traffic circles] and while the number of contributors has been steadily increasing, the number of new featured articles being produced has been a fairly steady 30-40 per month.
Am I the only one who thinks we have our priorities out of order? We are we spending so much energy arguing about the horrible stuff that (for all intents) will never be seen or noticed when our important articles (think - Michael Brown, Tom DeLay, John Roberts) are, well, not very good?
-Mark
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004
I would also mention that a group by the name of Featured Article Drive (FAD) is also trying to help work on articles to get up to that standard, and they have done a good job so far. But, this is a problem where I run into and others do: we write about stuff no one cares about. I had some FAC's fail because no one would comment on them or they do not want to fix things like the grammar themselves. We should try to point out that at FAC that though the nominator might say "I think that this article should be FA" and those coming to the FAC should work with him all they can, instead of just objecting then leave.
Regards,
Zachary Harden
From: "Ryan W. (Merovingian)" bigwiki@earthling.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Taking your eyes off the ball Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:08:24 -0500
I couldn't have said it better myself. I think by now that some series of articles should be updated together so that they are all featured. For example: nations of the world, US presidents, British monarchs, etc.
There's plenty of information that we have, and plenty that we've overlooked. Coordinated efforts to bring articles up to featured status need emphasis. The Collaborations of the Week are a good start, but the track record of past CotW's is poor.
--Ryan
From: Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net Subject: [WikiEN-l] Taking your eyes off the ball
I'm going to grouse a bit.
I think far, far too much attention gets paid to the worst articles on Wikipedia - the studs, the vanity articles, the stuff of debatable notability (schools!!) while not nearly enough effort goes into making crappy articles into good ones.
People on AFD love to argue about the crappiest articles. (It also tends to spill over to this mailing list) On the other side of the spectrum, the percentage of featured articles (number of featured articles / total number of articles) has been rapidly declining since March. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_statistics). And yet no one seems care. Sometime this month, percentage of featured articles will drop below 0.1% -- less than 1 article in 1000 being a featured article.
So while our article count is exploding [due to a massive influx of less-than-steller new articles.... think - traffic circles] and while the number of contributors has been steadily increasing, the number of new featured articles being produced has been a fairly steady 30-40 per month.
Am I the only one who thinks we have our priorities out of order? We are we spending so much energy arguing about the horrible stuff that (for all intents) will never be seen or noticed when our important articles (think - Michael Brown, Tom DeLay, John Roberts) are, well, not very
good?
-Mark