[Foundation-l] 10 thoughts on how to improve the quality of Swedish Wikipedia‏

[Meno 25]

Amazing. Thank you for sharing it with us.

--User:Meno25

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson <
wikihannibal at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Just to let you know a bit of what's happening at the Swedish Wikipedia.
>
> In the middle of February I published an essay. As it was I who wrote it,
> I
> am perhaps a bit biased here, so I will try to put it mildly: it created
> the
> largest number of positive actions I have seen in… well, forever, at
> Swedish
> Wikipedia. It has since become a document that many Swedish Wikipedians
> refer to as a standard document. It will certainly be a main topic at our
> general assembly of Wikimedia Sverige. I recently posted this to
> internal-l,
> and got questions about reposting it on foundation-l. It has since been
> "released" on Meta as well, both in English and the orginal Swedish.
>
> Therefore I thought I'd share the essay with you. Hopefully some of you
> will
> see it fit to publish somewhere on your Wikipedia. For maximum effect, cut
> and paste into an edit box and see all the beautiful pictures and links
> (though some may have to be corrected on your Wikipedia, it has been
> converted into fitting in on English Wikipedia).
>
> Please excuse any language errors. Also, apologies to Frank Schulenburg
> for
> misunderstanding everything that he said during his visit to Sweden in
> January.
>
> The original essay appears as a subpage of my user page: *
>
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Hannibal/10_tankar_om_kvalitet*
> <
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Hannibal/10_tankar_om_kvalitet
> >
>
> Best wishes
> Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia
> Sverige<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige>
>
>
> ---
>
> [[Image:Lennart Guldbrandsson Ordförande WikimediaSverige.jpg|thumb|
> [[:sv:User:Hannibal|Hannibal]]]]
> ==Ten possibly provoking thoughts about improving the quality of Swedish
> Wikipedia==
> Right now we have [roughly 276 000] articles on Swedish Wikipedia.
>
> For a long time that has been the most publicized measure of how good we
> are. Obviously it's good to have many articles. But already in 2006 Jimmy
> Wales spoke at Wikimania about how he wanted Wikipedia to go from a
> quantity
> based point of view (the maximum number of articles) to a quality based.
> This you could divide into two phases. ''Phase one'', where we've been so
> far, could be likened with [[Star Trek|"boldly going where no one has gone
> before"]]. "Phase two", which we are entering now, is rather about seeing
> to
> it that [[Deadwood (TV series)|the frontier town will get some law and
> order]].
>
> [[Image:Frank in gothenburg.JPG|thumb|Frank Schulenburg during the meeting
> in Gothenburg.]]
> During my two days long meeting with
> [[:de:Benutzer:Frank_Schulenburg|Frank
> Schulenburg]], vice chair from [http://www.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia
> Deutschland] in January of 2008, we therefore discussed, in general terms,
> why [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite the German Wikipedia] often
> is
> considered one of the best versions of Wikipedia. In the magazine
> [[Stern]],
> there was last year a comparison between German Wikipedia (dewp) and
> [[Brockhaus Enzyklopädie|Brockhaus]] (the German equivalent of our
> [[Nationalencyklopedin]]), where dewp's grades were much better than
> Brockhaus's, see [http://www.stern.de/magazin/heft/604448.html The front
> page of the Stern issue where the comparison is published]. That could not
> be said about Swedish Wikipedia - yet. But not about English Wikipedia
> either.
>
> One explanation that has floated around is that [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page English Wikipedia] to some extent
> is
> written by users with other mother tongues than English, which makes the
> level of the text lower and hence the quality. Since Swedish Wikipedia in
> that respect is more like the dewp than the English Wikipedia (enwp), we
> can
> leave that theory and instead concentrate on two more important questions:
> * what have dewp done to reach such a high quality ''and''
> * could Swedish Wikipedia (svwp) reach the same high quality
>
> The answer to question number 2 is: Frank thought so. And I think so, too.
>
> The answer to question number 1 is what the rest of this essay is about.
>
> I wish to stress that these are no more than thoughts, if provoking
> thoughts. I am aware that not all these proposals neither can nor should
> be
> implemented. That is not the goal. (I am, for example, not sure that I
> agree
> with each and every proposal that I write about.) The goal is instead to
> get
> all regular users to think about quality (phase two), rather than quantity
> (phase one), but also rather than various other considerations. But we
> will
> get there.
>
> Quite simply, this is my take on '''dewp's recipe to become a better
> encyclopedia'''.
>
> ===Thought number one: delete the bad articles===
> I want to begin with a controversial proposal. It was controversial on
> dewp
> and the result there is still not totally clear, but I think that it may
> be
> good to start with a jolt.
>
> The proposal is to '''remove all bad articles'''. Bad articles come in
> many
> forms: stubs and substubs, articles with low real content (e.g. peacock
> and
> weasel terms), articles without proper language, articles that are
> confusing, lists that can never be completed, etc, etc. By deleting them
> we
> won't have a [[:Category:Wikipedia maintenance|maintenance page]] that's
> always full of things to do and has become a constant guilty conscience,
> rather than a project which some time will be more or less fulfilled.
>
> How would this be done? Well, the active users in a particular topic, for
> example a [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject|project]] or a
> [[:Wikipedia:Portal|portal]] (in other words: people who are interested),
> regularly go through "their" categories and weed out the worst articles -
> ''of course, they should enhance the articles they can". Enhancements are
> naturally better, but in many instances it would take such a long time
> that
> it's better to simply remove the articles.
>
> '''Summary:''' This deletion proposal would lead to svwp downsizing the
> article count. We could even go below 250,000 articles. But think of it
> like
> this: what kind of press release we could issue! "Wikipedia takes out all
> garbage."
>
> ===Thought number two: remove all conflicts===
> It take up a lot of energy, the conflicts,  the arbitrations, and the
> bothersome users that push their agenda and spend most of their time on
> svwp
> discussing the topic instead of writing articles.
>
> The proposal, which is also based on discussions with [
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Notafish Delphine Ménard], about her
> experiences from French Wikipedia, is to remove the conflicts from svwp.
>
> Remove the conflicts? Is that even possible? Most likely there will always
> be differences of opinion about how articles should read, but lately these
> conflicts have come to deal more and more about the topics themselves than
> how the articles should look. It can be fun to take a break from writing
> articles by discussing something, but it also create a lot of conflict and
> draw focus away from the goal of making an encyclopedia. It has become too
> much "communism is bad" instead of "how should the article about communism
> be balanced?" (This is *not* solely about how communism should be
> portrayed,
> but representative of two different ways of working. One way works on
> webforums where the goal isn't anything else than discussing, the other
> way
> works better when the goal is [[WP:NOT|to write an encyclopedia]].)
>
> What I am talking about is a '''lower tolerance level''':
> * Faster blocking for things that are not vandalism (personal attacks,
> bullshitting, for example). It doesn't necessarily have to be long blocks,
> and sometimes warnings are enough - or why not a question on the user's
> talk
> page?
> * Letting people know when the discussion goes too far off-topic.
> * Telling people to take a [[:Wikipedia:Wikibreak|wikibreak]] when they
> seem
> to be stressed.
> * Focus more on [[WP:mediation Cabal|mediation]] than on getting admins to
> take action against the other part.
>
> And this will require:
> * More admins and less prestige about having the admin tools
> * Less [[Jante Law|tall poppy syndrome]] (admins, including me, have let
> irritating behavior through, most likely because of the "should I's" -I
> who
> don't know the subject, who hasn't been through every part of the
> discussion, who recently became an admin, who doesn't want to make
> enemies,
> etc.) and more ''"can do"'' (it's not that hard to know what a personal
> attack looks like, eh?)
> * More barnstars and other forms of kudos for those who take an active
> part
> in conflict resolution
>
> '''Summary:''' Think of being able to spend your time here to actually
> make
> the articles better rather than answering people on talk pages. And every
> conflict is another risk to alienating yet another active user.
>
> ===Thought number three: add a quality meter===
> At the moment, the following message welcomes users at the Main page of
> svwp:
>
> <div style=text-align:center>
> <h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em;">
> Välkommen till [[Wikipedia]],</h1>
> <div style="font-size: 95%">den '''fria encyklopedin''' som '''[[Hjälp:Hur
> man redigerar en sida|alla kan redigera]].</div>
> <div style="font-size:85%;">Just nu finns det
> [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] artiklar på svenska</div>
> </div>
>
> Read it carefully. I don't think this message gives the impression that we
> focus very much on quality. At all. We just want to show how many articles
> we have got, and that everybody can edit them.
>
> But maybe that isn't very surprising, since there even isn't a "magic
> word"
> to indicate how many featured articles a specific language version of
> Wikipedia has got. There are magic words to show the number of users, the
> number of admins, the number of edits, the number of uploaded files, etc,
> but none for quality. However, we now have created the template
> [[:sv:Mall:Antal utvalda artiklar]], which says how many featured and good
> articles Swedish Wikipedia has at the moment.
>
> Hence, I'd like to add one thing: a meter that shows the quality of the
> encyclopedia, already at the Main page. This is an example, that has been
> created quite quickly (maybe some kind of graph would be nice?), just to
> show what I mean:
>
> <div style=text-align:center>
> <h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em;">
> Välkommen till [[Wikipedia]],</h1>
> <div style="font-size: 95%">den '''fria encyklopedin''' som '''[[Hjälp:Hur
> man redigerar en sida|alla kan redigera]].</div>
> <div style="font-size:85%;">Just nu finns det
> [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] artiklar på svenska, varav
> [[Wikipedia:Statistik över utvalda artiklar|1,3‰ är utvalda för sin
> kvalitet]]</div>
> </div>
>
> Then we wouldn't focus just on how many articles we have got, but also on
> the quality of them, already from the start. By putting the textbox there,
> we would almost be forced to increase our quality. (And when I say "Main
> page" I don't mean only the Main page, but for this should be a number
> that's seen on various places.)
>
> As you can see, we count our featured and good articles in permille, not
> even in percent. Just imagine what an inspiration it would be to increase
> this percentage to maybe 1%. (As of today, this would mean that 2700 of
> our
> articles were either featured or good. As an comparison, dewp has
> 1260 featured and 2295 good articles. After all, dewiki is about ten times
> as big as svwp, but if you see to the percentage of featrued articles, we
> are about equal (dewp's 1,81 permille compared to svwp's 1,3 permille).
>
> The user [[:en:User:Danny|Danny]] of the English Wikipedia - the same
> person
> that started [http://en.veropedia.com/ Veropedia] and
> [[:en:Wikipedia:Danny's contest|the competition about best new articles]]
> -
> did write in September 2006, that English Wikipedia should aim for 100 000
> featured articles. 100 000 featured articles! Now, that would have been
> something. (Also see
> [[:en:Wikipedia:100%2C000_feature-quality_articles|100
> 000 feature-quality articles]].)
>
> Enwp also has a list of which users that have been the main authors of the
> greatest number of featured articles, [[:en:Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians
> by
> featured article nominations|here]]. Would that be something to introduce
> just to make more writers to do that last little something? Who is first
> to
> reach 10 featured articles? Has someone already reached 10? How about 20
> then?
>
> '''Summary:''' Just imagine that svwp could reach 1% featured articles.
> Then
> we would be five times as good as German Wikipedia!
>
> ===Thought number four: get money===
> [[Image:WMF 2007-2008 spending plans.svg|thumb|How Wikimedia Foundation
> want
> to spend their money]]
> Wikipedia is nonprofit - I know. But to get Wikipedia work at all,
> donations
> are needed. (By the way, please donate [
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Insamling here] or to bank giro
> 5822-9915 to support
> [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_SverigeWikimedia Sverige].)
> The money goes to servers, bandwidth, technical staff,
> and the expenditure of the organisation (see [
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008planned
> expenses 2007-2008]).
>
> It would be sad though if the donations just would be about getting
> Wikipedia to work. Donations are also about increasing the quality.
>
> The counterpart of Wikimedia Sverige in Germany, Wikimedia Deutschland,
> works hard with their money to increase the quality:
> *buying expensive reference literature for research of heavy subjects
> (which
> later is "stored" by the users)
> *travel expenses so that the Wikipedians could meet and discuss projects,
> or
> just meet (because it is easier to discuss with people you know - a German
> Wikipedian who was living in Finland could meet other German Wikipedians
> for
> the first time thanks to WMDE)
> *prize money in article-writing-contests, for example
> [[Wikipedia:Academy|Zedler-medaljen which is recieved during Wikipedia
> Academy]] (dewp has the contest two times a year - 40% of the
> contributions
> becomes featured articles)
> *arrange fairs and so on, for example Wikipedia Academy
> *fix scanning of pictures to Wikisource (other local chapters of WMF sends
> out photographers to photograph etc.)
>
> More than that: The contributions sent to Wikimedia Deutschland have also
> led to them gaining more respect - according to the thought "if grant
> institution X have seen that Wikimedia Deutschland/Wikipedia is good,
> maybe
> we should help them as well" (which have led to them gaining more
> contributions and so on). They have also been able to send out press
> releases about their successes, which have given them positive PR. It is
> often just about getting throught the first application procedure, and the
> next time it is easier to pass.
>
> On the longer run we hope that Wikimedia Sverige will be able to take the
> same types of initiatives. But we need more ideas of where money should
> come
> from, and where they should go. All such proposals/ideas are appreciated.
> You can also, of course, help. Please sign up on [
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige/Medlemssidan the member
> list of Wikimedia Sverige].
>
> To dream even more: what if Wikimedia Foundation could recieve enough
> money
> (the last fundraising didn't correspond with the expectations and some
> planned projects are therefore cut down) to spend its energy on more
> ''important things'' than to think about money all the time. Then they
> would
> be able to design an interface that is [[WYSIWYG|more like the result]]
> than
> today's complicated tags, templates and and tables.
>
> '''Summary:''' With more money it would be much easier to get our press
> releases publicated in media which would increase the interest of editing
> on
> Wikipedia. "Wikipedia awards the best article", "She got her student books
> from Wikipedia", or preferably, "Swede makes Wikipedia simple to edit".
>
> ===Thought number five: more clearly defined projects===
> Frank told me about two or three users on dewp who decided to create
> articles about ''all lillies''. They made it. It took about a year. We've
> had similiar projects on svwp: [[:sv:Wikipedia:Projekt Tintin|Project
> Tintin]] for example, where the goal to create articles was accomplished
> in
> less than a few months. After that, some think, the project has reached a
> stand still. I would say that the project largly has reached its goal.
>
> But there's no shortage of projects on svwp. Presently there a couple of
> hundred projects. Far from all of them have any clear goal, nor any
> attainable goal. Not many of them document their progress, somthing which
> is
> good for both the group behind the project and other interested parties.
> This leads me to a couple of questions: How many of our projects have
> served
> their purposes? How many of them are dead? Anyone willing to go to town
> with
> the template {{:sv:Mall:Färdigt projekt|This project is done}}?
>
> Recently there was a project on svwp with amazing results, see
> [[:sv:Wikipedia:Projekt wikifiering|Project wikify]]. One thing that I
> believe contributed to the success of that project is that they calculated
> what needed to be done and what was done and presented that on the project
> page. The goal became very clear.
>
> '''Summary''' With clearer goals for the projects we can accomplish great
> things. Then we should dismantle that project.
>
> ===Thought number six: rally more Wikipedians===
> Right now there are [57 000] registrered users on svwp. We need to be many
> more if we are to raise the quality in any mentionable measure. As it is
> now, around half a percent makes roughly 50 percent of all edits. That
> means
> that there are 300 very active Wikipedians against 56 500 rather
> indifferent
> Wikipedians.
> There are several dangers here: intellectual inbreed, reduced article
> growth, conflicts that can risk the future of the project, wikistress, POV
> and blindness to the systematic bias, and last but not least, that
> outsiders
> begin to think of the users here as a group that's very hard to get into.
> Considering that Sweden, Finland and almost all the other countries where
> Swedish is a large language have such a large portion of the population
> connected to the internet, we should, with no big problems, be able to
> rally
> more users.
>
> [[Image:WT-träff om wikipedia academy.jpg|thumb|Wikipedians meet to
> discuss
> Wikipedia Academy: [[:sv:User:Hannibal|Hannibal]],
> [[:de:Benutzer:Frank_Schulenburg|Frank Schulenburg]],
> [[:sv:User:Moralist|Moralist]] (on his knee), [[:sv:User:Grillo|Grillo]],
> [[:sv:User:Boivie|Boivie]], [[:sv:User:Mnemo|Mnemo]] and
> [[:sv:User:LA2|LA2]].]]
> Some proposals for rainy or sunny days:
> * make the [[:meta:Edit_Wikipedia_Week|Edit Wikipedia week]] a bigger
> event
> * mention for your friends and family that you edit Wikipedia (and why)
> and
> encourage them to do the same
> * ask someone you know to be an expert on a particular topic to read the
> article on Wikipedia and help make it better
> * ask your school if they can't do a project creating articles with the
> framework of a certain subject, see [[:en:Wikipedia:School and university
> projects|Using Wikipedia in school]]
> * mention Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia Foundation projects) as a
> source when you post on internet forums
> * use images and other media from Wikimedia Commons, quotes from
> Wikiquote,
> word explanations from Wiktionary, etc, in essays, articles and other
> written texts
> * greet and guide new users in a friendly way - even the not-so-nice ones
> * attent a Wikipedia meetup
> * attend the local chapter general assembly (and join, of course, a 100
> kronors in the case of Wikimedia Sverige is not a lot of money)
> * "accidentally forget" the web browser at the main page of Wikipedia when
> you finish surfing a public computer - and if possible, bookmark it among
> the favourites
> * buy Wikipedia things from
> [http://325837.spreadshirt.net/se/SE/ShopWikimedia Sverige's webshop]
> or [
> http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia CafePress] and wear them in a public
> place
> * start a contest around who can produce the highest number of new users.
>
> ''Any cooperations'' would be good ideas: what if Amazon.com, national
> record archives, radio stations, book review sites, MySpace and similar
> sites linked to the appropriate page on Wikipedia. Then the webb traffic
> (and probably also the number of users) increase dramatically.
>
> '''Summary:''' More users equals higher quality. How about "10 000
> registrered users on Swedish Wikipedia"? Everyone with more than 10 edits.
>
> ===Thought number seven: educate the general public in how Wikipedia
> works===
> [[Image:Consolation-Lake-Szmurlo.jpg|thumb|Not everybody know that Commons
> contains pictures this good. Please let them know that.]]
> I have myself started a cooperation with Gothenburg City Library to see if
> we can do seminars and workshops for the general public. The library have
> shown great interest. I doubt that other libraries would be less
> interested:
> right now there is a great discussion about how Library 2.0 should look
> and
> feel and many already work with databases. And in that contact I have also
> gotten proposals to speak in front of two senior citizens' internet groups
> about how Wikipedia works. There are more such groups. What if there were
> 200 senior citizens adding information about their era's movie stars,
> tools
> that are almost forgotten nowadays or aspects on our history that we
> younger
> people cannot possibly be aware of.
>
> Teachers need lesson plans for how to view material on the internet. There
> many of us Wikipedians can teach a lot - about Wikipedia's quality
> programs
> (version handling, adminship, recent changes, blocking, oversight, etc) as
> well as source critizism. By getting the teachers on our side, we could
> potentially get approximately 100 000 new users each year (the mean number
> of children born each year in Sweden).
>
> Based on Wikimedia Deutschland's material, Wikimedia Sverige is in the
> process of developing leaflets to hand out and presentations that
> practically anyone with a month's worth of experience from Wikipedia could
> do, about how Wikipedia works. Please help with this!  [[:sv:User
> talk:Hannibal|Contact me]] for more information. If you don't want to do
> the
> presentationen yourself there shouldn't be to hard finding someone else to
> do it, if you pay for travel expenses.
>
> '''Summary:''' Think about the headline "Wikipedia visits school" or why
> not
> "Confront Wikipedia at the library"? "The mean age of Wikipedia is now 55
> years" may not be a dream, or is it?
>
> ===Thought number eight: educate the experts in how Wikipedia works===
> But it's not only ''more'' users we need. We also need expert competence
> in
> lots of different subjects to make sure the articles not only scratch on
> the
> surface. (That's also one of the disadvantages of having so few regular
> users: we cannot possibly be experts on everything and hence the articles
> are less deep than if we could stay in our respective areas.)
>
> So, how do we get more experts to contribute to Wikipedia, other than the
> proposals I've already mentioned?
>
> [[Image:Academy Goettingen Moeller 0824.JPG|thumb|One of the workshops
> during Wikipedia Academy in Göttingen 2006.]]
> One proposal that we are already in the process of making come true
> through
> Wikimedia Sverige is staging a '''Wikipedia Academy'''. In Germany, France
> and South Africa these meetings between Wikipedia and the academic world
> have become very successful and have wetted the respective countries and
> chapters an appetite for more. For dewp Wikipedia Academy meant among
> other
> things an increase in media exposure, but also more contributions from
> scientists. The best example is a [[emeritus]] in [[agriculture]] who was
> so
> fascinated by Wikipedia that he started writing two or three articles a
> day.
> So far he's written about 300 of them - on a scholarly level. Since he has
> a
> personal image library Commons now have a treasure trove the price of
> which
> can hardly be overestimated.
> The first Swedish Wikipedia Academy will take place in [[Lund]], in
> cooperation with [[Lunds universitet|the university]]. There you can both
> make new contacts and make yourself useful (we need everything from
> organisers to kitchen staff).
>
> Another proposal is getting experts for money (or not) to participate as
> '''judges in article writing contests'''. Through seeing that way how good
> Wikipedia's articles actually can get, they may be lured into writing for
> Wikipedia, at least some time or another. Imagine [some local celebrity
> expert editing in his or her expert subject].
>
> A third proposal is approaching '''expert organizations''' and ask them to
> help with their areas of expertise. The article on [[torture]] could for
> example need an hours work from a specialist at [[Amnesty International]].
> And if we only give them an introductory course in how to enter sources
> etc
> into the article, I do not believe that questions about [[WP:NOT|no
> original
> research]] and [[WP:NPOV|bias]] should be overwhelmingly large. It's
> definitely in ''their'' interest to look good on Wikipedia - and as long
> as
> we explain that the best way to get respect is to be neutral, I believe
> that
> we can handle the organizations that cannot manage that trust.
>
> '''Summary:''' Image the headlines "Now you can correct [some famous
> know-it-all] on Wikipedia" or "The founder of Wikipedia comes to Sweden ―
> checking the collaboration with Lund's university".
>
> ===Thought nine: concentration on the basic articles===
> Okay, say nothing in this essay will happen: no deletion of bad articles,
> no
> lowering of the tolerance level for conflicts, no quality meter, no money,
> no clearly defined projects (but already a project has started to check
> articles for relevancy, so the risk of nothing happening here is nil), no
> massive increase in Wikipedians, no education of either the general public
> nor the experts - what do we do then?
>
> There is still plenty we can do, on both large and small scale, to
> increase
> quality: one of my favourite examples is to '''make it easier for newbies
> to
> edit Wikipedia'''. That's one area with lots to do. Image yourself to be
> new
> to Wikipedia and clicking the edit button. To put it mildly: it's not
> entirely clear what everything in the edit box [
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustav_Vasa&action=edit here]
> means.
>
> It's not easy to learn what rules apply on Wikipedia. I have for a long
> time
> planned to make some big changes to the
> [[:en:Wikipedia:Community_Portal|Community Portal]] and several other
> pages
> listed on the menu to the left of every page. They are a mess.
>
> But that's not what I suggest we concentrate for the near future.
>
> [[Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png|thumb|This is how
> Wikipedia should look. Or?]]
> My suggestion is rather that we take a good look at what people a) most
> likely need and b) really seem to want. There two tools are the starting
> point for a bigger project:
> # [[:sv:Wikipedia:Kvalitetsgranskningstabeller|our quality assessing
> tables]] which uses the 1000 articles long [[meta:List of articles all
> languages should have|list of articles all Wikipedias should have]] but
> also
> includes assessements of how svwp's versions are.
> # [[:sv:Wikipedia:Populära artiklar|lists of our most popular articles]]
>
> Using these two tools we have identified the most important articles. It's
> basically these articles that Wikipedia is judged upon.
>
> '''The project is quite simply to during the near future making sure that
> a)
> all 1000 articles in the quality assessing table either attain featured or
> good quality status, and b) the 200 most popular articles every month at
> least is presentable (does not have template warning of low quality), but
> ideally also attain featured or good quality status.'''
>
> I am aware of the fact that this will be no picknick. But it is important,
> and if we work together it can happen pretty fast. If everyone of the
> regular Wikipedians (all perhaps 300) take upon themselves three or four
> articles to enhance until the end of December 2008, we have reached the
> goal. It's actually not harder than that.
>
> ===Thought number ten: (surprise)===
> <div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="stub">
> {| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:transparent;"
> | [[Image:Wiki letter w.svg|19px| ]]
> | ''&nbsp;<sup>This [[Wikipedia:Stub|section]] needs
> [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} to be expanded]. It's no
> coincidence that this last point is empty. I don't have all the answers.
> In
> fact, I would like more suggestions. So make a new section and present
> your
> thoughts of how best to improve Wikipedia.''
> |}</sup></div>
>
>
> --
> Lennart Guldbrandsson, ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt
> för
> svenskspråkiga Wikipedia
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>