Pharos pharosofalexandria at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 19:49:37 UTC 2008

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Now, -if- you thought it was a useful idea to distinguish between
>  >  Latin and Sumerian, wouldn't this be a good way to do that in these
>  >  cases?
>  >
>  Assuming that, I still think the criterion is too subjective. This is
>  particularly true for languages like Aramanik, which have few or no
>  English speakers to write a featured article. Furthermore, the
>  articles on "Aramanik" and "Aramanik literature" would need to be
>  extensive before an article specifically about "modern Aramanik
>  literature" were featured.

As I explained, this would -not- apply to Aramanik, or languages like
Aramanik.  -Every- language with native users should be welcome.  The
current process works very well in evaluating languages with native
speakers, and I would not have that part of the process changed at

This is proposed -only- as a requirement for written-only languages.

>  Featured texts are selected by vote. If the only purpose is to
>  determine "notability", we can hold our own vote on that specific
>  issue. However, I don't think voting is a very good tool for this kind
>  of decision.

Featured Articles are -not- selected by vote.  Voting, of course, is
evil.  They are evaluated by a thorough process of consensus, and
determined by a respected centralized authority.

To quote from the English Wikipedia:

"The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the
timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be
promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the
criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the
director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus."


More information about the foundation-l mailing list