[Foundation-l] "Vital Articles" underperforming?

[Delirium]

On 12/4/11 4:01 PM, Andreas K. wrote:
> many featured articles – at least on en:WP – are about
> niche topics, while so-called "vital articles" (VA), i.e. core topics that
> any encyclopedia would be expected to cover well, are underperforming, with
> comparatively few making FA or GA. Looking at the VA list,
>
> [...]
>
>
> Generally speaking, it stands to reason that articles on niche topics are
> easier to improve. One or two editors can work in relative peace and quiet,
> and the number of sources is more manageable. If there are only two dozen
> sources covering the topic, it's clear where to start; but where do you
> start with a topic like Information technology?

 From reading a number of other encyclopedias, both general and 
specialist, this problem seems fairly common in various degrees. The 
article standard for an article on a specific topic (say, one smallish 
archaeological site) in a specialist encyclopedia will typically be 
extremely high, but the standard for articles on general topics (like 
"archaeology" or "forum") varies much more.

One approach is to hire someone famous to write their personal, often 
not-NPOV, take on it (the EB1911 approach, where famously Peter 
Kropotkin wrote the article on anarchism). Another is to try to get 
together a smallish group of experts to write a survey article, which 
may end up more NPOV, but usually still with a significant slant. In my 
experience, experts in a field usually *hate* these general encyclopedia 
articles, and rarely agree with them. I know that when I look up 
"artificial intelligence" (my area) in an encyclopedia, even a 
specialist one, I'm always prepared to groan. But I can look up more 
specific techniques with less fear of disappointment.

One solution is to lower the bar for what an FA-standard general article 
needs to be, and recognize that these articles will just not be as good. 
That, de facto, is what most other encyclopedias do. Another approach is 
to keep the bar high, and recognize that there will never be as many 
broad topics meeting that standard.

I do think it's interesting to think of how to fix it, though. I'm not 
sure it's a problem anyone's solved *outside* of Wikipedia, so it'd be 
an interesting trick to solve within it!

-Mark