maybe I've been around for too long but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team rings a bell or two, I'm sure its still used by editors and projects to "grade" articles with most projects having their own internal assessment areas both on quality and importance
then we have community wide FA, GA, peer review all of whom attest to how comprehensive an article. And then there the one project to rule them all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style
Except very clearly we have an accept policy guide for all projects that says "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_pages." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject
another project isnt needed to improve content or make people work together, or to retain experienced editors there are already over 2000 projects who's scope includes doing that on differing subject matters
Accuracy implies something that is an absolute, but we have key pillars that only require being neutral, and that means even inaccurate information should be presented depending on the significance of its POV
On 25 March 2016 at 19:14, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
Accuracy"
I see from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accuracy
that there is already a "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval."
Burn it with fire, and salt the ashes.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe