Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to understand.
I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a necessity to understand what
is being said.
On 25 March 2016 at 14:13, Stephen Philbrick <stephen.w.philbrick(a)gmail.com>
Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I
trust no one will be
opposed to the goal.
However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
*Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the English Wikipedia. I
note that page has a scope section with no content as yet. However, I think
taking on the entire English Wikipedia is biting off too much initially.
Projects such as this work best if started as a pilot project. While
someone may envision this eventually applying to all languages and treat
English as the pilot, there is no way in which a project who scope is over
5 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the purview
of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
initiatives of editors in that area.
*Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a group
called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these WMF
employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?
*Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on any
particular article, as that article could change literally seconds later. I
see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection. It
would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only qualified
editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
changes. The second option will require a whole new level of bureaucracy.
*Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that
is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that all
articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital articles?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org