Ashwin,
Thanks for this note and the previous one, both well articulated. A few points:
1. A lot of the edits on the dam article were IP edits, whereas Manmohan Singh is a
protected page - only autoconfirmed users can edit, hence IPs are ruled out. Further, the
dam was in the news, which gave it limelight and made it a good COTM choice (though, as I
said earlier, the limelight often makes the article unstable which would mean a fail at
GAR).
2. As I mentioned earlier, several India GA/FAs have been demoted. A few like Mumbai have
received attention and have been re-promoted. Most demoted articles just havnt received
thart sort of attention - primarily due to the retirement of a bunch of editors who worked
hard to get the pages to GA/FA status, there arnt people enough for this.
3. The COTM doesnt have too many regular active editors, hence making a GA from scratch is
difficult, working on a demoted one may be a lot easier
4. Depending on the response, the COTM should be extended - this may mean articles which
may not be upto the mark within a month get to a decent level - people dont stop editing
it abruptly.
5. This is probably going to be very controversial - I suggest only people actually taking
part in COTM get to vote in the choice for the COTM every month. Rationale being its those
chaps that do the work, if they arnt interested in the topic chosen, it will probably be a
failure as they wont be motivated enough to participate. Hence, its important that the
active editors get their choice of articles not what others want them to do.
6. Online outreach - there are Indian editors active on en wiki that arnt on this list or
active offline and do not wish to mingle with Wikipedians offline. I feel a major push is
required to include these sort of editors in COTM - as these are some really active
editors who can make a big difference to this initiative.
7. A lot of previously very active editors are a part of this list. Im not asking you to
come back and be an active part of this initiative - you are probably busy with other
stuff, however, it would be greatly appreciated if you guys had a look at the COTM article
say maybe on a weekly basis and gave your input on it - either on the talk page or on this
list. Playing an active role will always be appreciated, however if you cant, we would
love to see you guys mentor next-gen editors participating in COTM :)
Kind Regards,
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:37:25 +0530
From: ashwin.baindur(a)gmail.com
To: wikimedia-in-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-in-en] Next month's INCOTM - a proposal to include former GA/FA as
one of the choices
While restarting COTM last month, we had reduced our COTM targets from
five to two and we saw that of these one did well - the other flagged.
Perhaps it means that the number of people interested in COTM are not
that many. User:AroundTheGlobe had suggested last month that we consider
developing the low-hanging fruit ie former GA and FA articles and
bringing them back to quality each month. Personally I like this idea
for many reasons:
* it gives a different activity for people to do than just improving an article.
* brining an article to GA is like a quest or challenge for those who prefer such.
* the articles have already reached very good quality and relatively
little work is required to improve them and restore them to former
status.
* the WikiProject benefits much more tangibly.
* editors get to learn the GA process (lets begin with GA first) which they can then use
to improve their own articles.
So I propose that for January, we choose one normal article as normal
COTM and the other as Good Article Collaboration of the Month.
Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-en mailing list
Wikimedia-in-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-en