[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[wiki]

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe
Sent: 05 February 2011 10:21
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender
gap in Wikipedia contributors} 

>This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming 
for is FA.

Is it?

The quality standard FA writers are aiming at is clear, I'm not sure that's
the aim of the rest of the project. The rest of the project is governed by
crowd sourcing and consensus, and tends to operate in a different manner.


>FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. 


Precisely. It is also the case why FA tend to be on more obscure subjects,
where it is possible for a small group (or usually one writer) to commandeer
the article with little squealing. It is also possible here to totally
re-write whatever one finds (if indeed there is an existing article). 

If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA standard, we'd need
to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer was allowed to
start from scratch and write a new article, and then demonstrate to the
community that it was superior to the existing one. Good writers with
expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive to begin with the
mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers for every change
they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts, or indeed
careful research/writers off.

The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what is the (usually
welcome) by-product. 

*Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd sourcing and
consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put aside if a
certain article is better written a different way. In these cases we'll put
up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until and unless
something better is offered. 

*Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created articles. In which
case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only in the gaps. If
the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then this is to be
preferred, and the FA with his superior article must necessarily go
elsewhere. 

I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which
usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged
editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined
which of these is core and which is "the means to the end", on the occasions
when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another
we are all at sea.


Scott
      

_______________________________________________
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