[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41 FA and comprehensiveness

[Dahsun]

Hi, picking up Charles's point "Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they don't care about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to
the point where there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third
vertex is comprehensiveness". In my experience as an FA reviewer comprehensiveness is one of the FA criteria, and I've seen FA candidates get significantly more comprehensive at FAC. I've also seen problems when reviewers have seen omissions that the nominator doesn't want in "their" article.

WerSpielChequers 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:18:27 +0100
> From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The London Review of Books on
> Wikipedia
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4A3E08F3.7060205 at ntlworld.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
> format=flowed
> 
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
> >
> > I think what's interesting here is asking: how does
> Wikipedia harness 
> > the energy of the public (for want of a better word)
> in a way that can 
> > be more productive, useful (or at least less
> brain-sporkingly 
> > nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section
> does?
> Of course just about any model is superior to encouraging
> low-level 
> ranting.  The "open comments" are generally less
> interesting than a 
> letters page because there may be no filter. Or, as in the
> case of the 
> Sunday Times it seems, there is moderation but only to save
> 
> embarrassment to the paper. WP's basic idea of "merciless
> editing" is 
> one way, and it gets to one major issue at the root:
> touchtyping skills 
> don't make you a great writer, while basic copyediting
> skills can 
> transform rubbish prose.
> >
> > But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's
> book, the 
> > reviewer singled out the collaboratively-written
> afterword as better 
> > written than Andrew's book, which he found "full of
> interest but 
> > rather indulgent, containing too much incidental
> detail about people 
> > Lih wants to please." I can't imagine Andrew is fully
> happy about that 
> > (!) - but it's an interesting take.
> Time for one of my current pet theories: the "triangle of
> takes" on 
> upgrading WP. Andrew Lih represents one vertex, as you can
> see in his 
> recent NYT interview, where he cites popular culture and
> politics as the 
> drivers in WP. Basically this is about being very current
> in our 
> coverage. Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they
> don't care 
> about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to
> the point where 
> there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third
> vertex is 
> comprehensiveness. Lih's book - well, I haven't read it yet
> (sorry, 
> Andrew), but you can see it fitting roughly in with where I
> locate him 
> on the triangle. The "incidental detail" is often how
> popular culture or 
> political journalism is (deliberately) written, rather than
> trying for 
> in-depth or serious. 
> 
> Anyway, I commend the triangle: currency,
> comprehensiveness, quality. 
> Most people around the wiki can probably plot themselves
> somewhere in 
> the interior, and this gives a kind of map of prorities.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
> 
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41
> ****************************************
>