[WikiEN-l] Contest and quality

[Carl Peterson]

While we not be able to necessarily make a comparison on the basis of
content inclusion, there is still something to be said for establishing a
reputation for quality on the order of Britannica. I think that was more
what was intended than a comment on what articles are included.
Theoretically, every article on Wikipedia should be able to be brought to
the level of featured article. That goal (and the goal of even 100,000 FAs)
may mean that articles which could not be brought to FA level on their own
need to be merged (e.g., a single, comprehensive article on multiple schools
instead of a stub for each individual article), but there should be a way to
bring all content on Wikipedia to the point where there is no need for the
Featured Article designation because every article is at the quality level
of a featured article. In many ways, that is my dream: for the Featured
Article process to be placed on the chopping block because Featured Articles
make up such a large proportion of the articles on Wikipedia that there is
no longer anything special. Or perhaps for the FA criteria to require so
much refinement that all but 1% of our FAs get bumped from that level.

And yes, I dream big.

Carl


On 9/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> They do however illustrate the conflict between providing what people
> want (more articles on sex and pro wrestling apparently) and creating
> what we believe should exist.
>
> We've comparisons with Britannica are difficult because we are
> different things. They work from the top down. We work from the bottom
> up. They are to a large degree a general education. We are tending to
> head towards the sum of all knowledge.
>
> The sum of all knowledge. Before Wikipedia did anyone really think
> what that meant?
>
> Of the various Si-fi encyclopaedias they mostly appear to historic
> encyclopaedias with expansions made for advances in science and the
> discovery of new planets. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy does
> well in terms of realising there are areas of knowledge not normally
> covered by such works but is of course famously light in it's coverage
> of certain areas. Star trek's Memory Alpha does fairly well but it
> apparently misses geography and some other areas (incidentally
> [[Category:Fictional encyclopedias]] is seriously bare).
>
> I don't think we really understand. And article on every school in
> Africa? An article on every village in India?
>
> Comparisons with Britannica are of limited use because we are not
> doing what they are doing. We are doing something that has never been
> done before.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>