[WikiEN-l] 100, 000 FAs as an achievable goal with a plan (was Contest and quality)

[Carl Peterson]

What would be ideal is if we could establish a content-area (i.e.,
WikiProject) peer review as a prerequisite for the purposes of content (esp.
for technical articles) then have it go to a "Brilliant Prose Committee" of
qualified persons (e.g., people with actual degrees or a lot of experience)
to evaluate the writing style, the readibility, the grammar, etc. But that
borders on instruction creep and would be strongly opposed as it creates an
elite class distinction and would knock out all the lovely people who derive
meaning in life from firing torpedoes at FACs.

Carl

On 9/12/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh - and when I speak of 100,000 Featured Articles, I quite definitely
> > don't mean articles that run the gauntlet of FAC as it presently
> > stands. I just read all of this page:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates
> >
> > That's just from the last month. Note the excellent start, where
> > someone complaining about the idiocy of the process is told to go away
> > and learn to write ... and has to point out to the objectors that he'd
> > just scored a couple of FAs.
> >
> > Any process that promotes this much bile and vitriol is fundamentally
> > damaging to Wikipedia's community operation and in need of severe
> > process-culling for sheer poisonousness.
>
> The problem is hardly one of excessive process, though.  The purpose
> of FAC, fundamentally, is to find problems in articles -- the idea
> being that we're looking for articles that none of the reviewers can
> find fault with -- and this naturally doesn't sit too well with people
> who don't like having flaws in their writing pointed out to them.
> Occasionally (as in the example you cite), one of said people will
> become extremely agitated and start running around shouting about the
> evil FAC process; but, for the most part, article writers take their
> lumps somewhat more stoically.
>
> The underlying issue is that the FA process is wearing two different
> hats.  It's based on criteria that people want to use as a checklist
> for *all* articles -- hence the idea of having 100,000 FAs -- but at
> the same time fills the role of selecting our "very best work" (with
> all the prestige implicit is that) and serving as pretty much the only
> formal recognition for articles available in Wikipedia.
>
> --
> Kirill Lokshin
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>