[WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles

[Carl (CBM)]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In terms of project management (not that we do any such thing) what
> conclusions to draw? We certainly have seen little cost-benefit analysis
> on the FA system as a whole.

Of course individual editors do their own cost/benefit analysis for
whether to participate in FA.

In my experience, FA is useful for:

* Improving compliance with the manual of style, and improving prose
structure in general

* Helping editors with less research and writing experience improve
their skills, much like the feedback on graded student essays helps
students write better essays in the future.  Positive feedback from FA
reviews can also give editors with little research and writing
experience some encouragement that they are doing a good job.

* Giving editors a goal to work towards, thus encouraging them to do
their best work.  Editors find that getting an article promoted to FA
gives them a feeling of accomplishment, a line they can add to their
"wikipedia vita", and in the best case some publicity for their topic
if it appears on the main page.  To the extent that this encourages
editors to contribute to Wikipedia, it's a good thing.

For editors who are not concerned with the finer points of the MOS,
who have confidence in their own research and writing abilities, and
are who motivated to edit WP without a need for external rewards, it
isn't clear at all that the effort of going through the FA process is
worthwhile.

Speaking for myself,  I have always thought that there isn't enough of
a benefit to the FA system to participate in it, and therefore I
don't, although I have nothing against other editors who find it
worthwhile.

I would be much more interested in a system for expert refereeing than
the present FA system.  To some extent, the current "peer review"
process can already be used for this, but I don't expect to see a real
change in this direction until the successor to Wikipedia.

- Carl