[WikiEN-l] No big deal?

[Stephen Bain]

On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon
> themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going
> through their entire history and producing a short report, which other
> people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where
> each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably
> votes based on the first 3 edits they see.

That sounds like an excellent idea. I, like many other people in my
experience, only tend to vote on RfAs where I know about the
candidate, where I have edited many articles that they have edited or
participated in many discussions that they have participated in.

This is fine for me, but there are quite a few people who participate
on RfA who don't know every candidate well (which is fine - it's a
community decision).

Most often, nominators are people who have plenty of experience with
the candidate, and perhaps they sometimes forget to communicate
clearly to that second group of people who want to participate but
aren't familiar with all the candidates. Higher standards for
*nominators* means better information for the community.

I would also suggest more standard questions for candidates, and
encourage people who add questions of their own.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com