I think rupert and I perhaps got crossed wires in translation…
getting us back on topic - I am not sure that the "defining important" argument is the most cruicial part of the problem (though at a glance it does look like more work has been done on those than on vital articles) . I think the important question is who we encourage quality contributions in those areas.
One good suggestion I had seen discussed somewhere (forget where) was that similar to the community travel grants scheme - the foundation might produce a "community research scheme" where people who are looking to improve an important article but who need to purchase access to sources can get a grant (payable when the article reaches GA/FA level) for JSTOR accounts or whatever. This would probably only work on mature wiki's where the peer review systems for a FA are high enough - but it is an interesting idea. -- Alasdair
On Monday, 5 December 2011 at 05:29, rupert THURNER wrote:
i started improving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology and i felt somehow left alone by you native english speakers only writing emails :)
what do you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WPRV prepared by the team around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team?
this team around martin walker also made quite an effort of defining what is "important", defining an assessment scheme and a nomination process:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topic...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Ve...
- e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Assessment#Imp...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment
rupert.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 20:47, Alasdair <web@ajbpearce.co.uk (mailto:web@ajbpearce.co.uk)> wrote:
You can see all my contributions to en.wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ajbp or get an overview at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ajbp&lang=en&w...
Even if I had never contributed to wikipedia in my life however: If you look at my messages, I was very obviously making a point about the clearly expressed views of contributors far more experienced than myself (and, incidentally, far more experienced than you) and suggesting that we consider such views in the future with the respect they deserve when discussing en.wiki content issues. I would expect anyone responding to me to be able to comprehend that.
It is not very becoming of you to respond to what was a productive conversation with such a lazy "theoretical" message.
Alasdair
On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:38, rupert THURNER wrote:
did you already improve one of these articles or you are just writing theoretical mails about theoretically improving a list, and theoretically improving some text?
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 19:31, Alasdair <web@ajbpearce.co.uk (mailto:web@ajbpearce.co.uk) (mailto:web@ajbpearce.co.uk)> wrote:
If you look at the '10,000" articles list - it becomes very clear that the selection is totally arbitrary. ( more actors than painters listed - as a random example) So far the best suggestion that I have seen for "important" articles is that a wikiproject has ranked that article as "high" or "top" importance. But even that is a totally arbitrary criterion.
-- Alasdair
On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:03, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner <peter.damian@btinternet.com (mailto:peter.damian@btinternet.com) (mailto:peter.damian@btinternet.com)> wrote:
Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for philosophy, none of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism, empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is this?
There are always going to be disagreements over what should constitute a vital article. That isn't important to this discussion. I think most people's top 1000 articles would have a lot of overlap (I expect most of the top 100 VAs would appear at least somewhere in most people's top 1000) and even articles in that overlap aren't particularly good at the moment.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l