On 13/09/06, Carl Peterson <carlopeterson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> We've comparisons with Britannica are
difficult because we are
> different things. They work from the top down. We work from the bottom
> up. They are to a large degree a general education. We are tending to
> head towards the sum of all knowledge.
> The sum of all knowledge. Before Wikipedia did anyone really think
> what that meant?
I pictured the entire non-fiction section of a library. How many
articles would that be? (I assume we'd split that across projects.)
> Comparisons with Britannica are of limited use
because we are not
> doing what they are doing. We are doing something that has never been
> done before.
Yep. I'm not sure Britannica get that.
I don't particularly want to destroy Britannica (though it's been
losing money for how many years) - that will be a completely
unintended side effect.
(May I say, by the way, I really like it when you answer with several
paragraphs instead of a one-liner. Do please continue.)
While we not be able to necessarily make a comparison
on the basis of
content inclusion, there is still something to be said for establishing a
reputation for quality on the order of Britannica. I think that was more
what was intended than a comment on what articles are included.
I think the concept of a core area of coverage is valid. The FA
process clearly doesn't work for this so far - out of a thousand
articles, most are weird specialist things.
Theoretically, every article on Wikipedia should be
able to be brought to
the level of featured article.
It's such a pity this is as unlikely to be recognised by GA as it is by FA.
That goal (and the goal of even 100,000 FAs)
Now, that's I think what we need to quantify. Just what is that dream?
100,000 FAs. That means 100,000 articles that meet the FA criteria:
* It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
* It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and
relevant WikiProjects, including:
(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and
prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent
sections;
(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
* It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and
acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a
prerequisite for a featured article.
* It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic
without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
[Note that some of these are factually inaccurate - you won't get
through FAC without images (who was commenting that they could always
tell a Featured Article by a pointless image?), for example.]
Do we want 100,000 of the above? Are all of these what we want our
articles to be? (Are these criteria what we're actually aiming for or
has the above list been subtly warped by the FAC process over the past
couple of years?)
Let's assume we have a list of criteria pretty close to the above. How
many editor-hours does it take to get an article up to that standard?
(Assume you're a clueful editor who can both research and write well,
and think you can at least give your own article a usable initial
assessment on this checklist.)
- d.