Yeah, I know what Cleanup is about -- I started the
dang thing (kind of commandeering it from Cimon Avaro
IIRC). DGMW, continued proper diversification is going
to help a lot. But that doesnt change the fact that
(as we were talking about before *all the OT about how
[[cute]] our tiny progeny are*) some wider reforms are
needed to scale up guidance to match growth:
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_reform ( WP:DRR )
Its just a stub ATP and it and it needs a lot of work,
but when people get their ideas filled it I think
there will be something to talk about and base some
polls/votes on how to proceed.
(Parents may now continue their boasting.)
SV
--- Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason for specialization is that currently
{{cleanup}} is
applied to hundreds and hundreds of articles, many
of which are not
very high-profile and thus not high-priority. I
don't think it's the
end-all solution but it seemed like a reasonable
change to make.
It seems to me that cleanup in general has two
purposes: one, to
indicate that it is known that a particular article
is in a state of
disrepair and to help encourage people who stumble
across that article
to repair it. The second is to give people
interested in generally
improving Wikipedia the ability to find articles
which could use
attention.
The advantage of a little specialization would, I
believe, be to aid
the latter usage more than the former. All of the
characters and
topics in the "priority" category are also so well
known that there
are literally dozens of books written on them, they
are present in
every other encyclopedia available, and there are
hundreds upon
hundreds of webpages on them. Writing a biography of
[[Bill Gates]]
takes no specialized knowledge or training. I was
able to add a
substantial amount to the article just by cutting
and pasting content
from the other articles we have relating to
Microsoft (Microsoft,
History of Microsoft Windows, and United States v.
Microsoft,
specifically). That took about 15 minutes worth of
work. This is stuff
*anyone* can do if they want to.
"If they want to" is of course the operative part.
Specialization can
be enabling -- *if* someone wants to work on a
general article, it's a
good way to direct them to things which need
attention -- but it does
not compel action in and of itself. That's a bigger
question, and
worth thinking about seriously, though I don't have
any specific ideas
regarding it at the moment, personally.
FF
On 10/7/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Further specialization in process may help, but
thats
only part of it. Some would say its just more
"process
creep", and I tend to think the truth
somewhere in
the
middle between process upgrades and guidance
upgrades.
IAC I think I need to apologise for my earlier
comment, "please forgive us..." which was indeed a
bit
snippy (though quite edited down from what I had
in
the draft :|). Our traditional proper response
to
anyone has traditionally been "{{sofixit}}" and it
should remain so, regardless of who makes the
criticism. There are in fact only two--exactly
two--kinds of people in this world: Those who edit
Wikipedia and those who dont.
And furthermore, I think ATP focusing on
particular
articles ("the pick on a crappy article
game" -
Flcello) at this point is rather useless, when
there
are indeed bigger fish to fry --considering my
opening
point, namely that stuff needs' be done.
Sincerely,
SV
--- Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the list I was thinking of. The cleanup
> process is currently so
> bogged down that it's hard to know what needs to
be
> done, though. In
> the meantime, I've created a template --
> {{cleanup-priority}}, which
> currently is a cleanup tag for any articles
which
> are of sub-par
> quality on that list (and should only be limited
to
> that list, I
> think), hopefully it will help focus things a
bit.
> (If people disagree
> with the "prioritization", well, they can argue
that
on the
list
itself -- if we have such a list, and take it at
least partially
seriously, then I think using it as a base for a
prioritization scheme
is a good idea).
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005