On 5/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately that doesn't reflect the reality of things
Which is why I said "in theory". I'm well aware that practice doesn't work that way, but it should still be the goal of the FA system to be more inclusive and try and achieve the theory.
Perhaps, but FAC quite deliberately and with forethought crank up the requirements so that FAs stay "best of the best".
And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that GA lost sight of its original purpose very early on, and became a mini-FA. I've had decent articles on subjects where not much can be written because of lacking sources rejected from GA - even in its first few months - and so I've given up completely on getting such articles recognised as being "good quality, but can't really go anywhere because they don't have sources or for some other reason can't make FA". In the end, these articles cannot be distinguished from the rest of the tripe that is normally on Wikipedia, and as such complicates things when, say, we want to compile articles illustrating the breadth of our coverage, since this practice effectively accentuates systemic bias.