[Foundation-l] "Vital Articles" underperforming?

[Alasdair]

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_topics
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria
> * e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Assessment#Importance_scale
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment
>  
> rupert.
>  
>  
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 20:47, Alasdair <web at ajbpearce.co.uk (mailto:web at 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&wiki=wikipedia
> >  
> >  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 at ajbpearce.co.uk (mailto:web at ajbpearce.co.uk) (mailto:web at 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 at btinternet.com (mailto:peter.damian at btinternet.com) (mailto:peter.damian at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org) (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org) (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org) (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  
>  
>