I think rupert and I perhaps got crossed wires in translation… getting us back on topic - I am not sure that the "defining important" argument is the most cruicial part of the problem (though at a glance it does look like more work has been done on those than on vital articles) . I think the important question is who we encourage quality contributions in those areas.
One good suggestion I had seen discussed somewhere (forget where) was that similar to the community travel grants scheme - the foundation might produce a "community research scheme" where people who are looking to improve an important article but who need to purchase access to sources can get a grant (payable when the article reaches GA/FA level) for JSTOR accounts or whatever. This would probably only work on mature wiki's where the peer review systems for a FA are high enough - but it is an interesting idea. -- Alasdair On Monday, 5 December 2011 at 05:29, rupert THURNER wrote: > i started improving > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology and i felt somehow > left alone by you native english speakers only writing emails :) > > what do you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WPRV > prepared by the team around > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team? > > this team around martin walker also made quite an effort of defining > what is "important", defining an assessment scheme and a nomination > process: > * > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations > * > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria > * e.g. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Assessment#Importance_scale > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment > > rupert. > > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 20:47, Alasdair <w...@ajbpearce.co.uk > (mailto:w...@ajbpearce.co.uk)> wrote: > > You can see all my contributions to en.wikipedia at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ajbp or get an overview > > at > > http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ajbp&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia > > > > Even if I had never contributed to wikipedia in my life however: If you > > look at my messages, I was very obviously making a point about the clearly > > expressed views of contributors far more experienced than myself (and, > > incidentally, far more experienced than you) and suggesting that we > > consider such views in the future with the respect they deserve when > > discussing en.wiki content issues. I would expect anyone responding to me > > to be able to comprehend that. > > > > It is not very becoming of you to respond to what was a productive > > conversation with such a lazy "theoretical" message. > > -- > > Alasdair > > > > > > On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:38, rupert THURNER wrote: > > > > > did you already improve one of these articles or you are just writing > > > theoretical mails about theoretically improving a list, and > > > theoretically improving some text? > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 19:31, Alasdair <w...@ajbpearce.co.uk > > > (mailto:w...@ajbpearce.co.uk) (mailto:w...@ajbpearce.co.uk)> wrote: > > > > If you look at the '10,000" articles list - it becomes very clear that > > > > the selection is totally arbitrary. ( more actors than painters listed > > > > - as a random example) So far the best suggestion that I have seen > > > > for "important" articles is that a wikiproject has ranked that article > > > > as "high" or "top" importance. But even that is a totally arbitrary > > > > criterion. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Alasdair > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner <peter.dam...@btinternet.com > > > > > (mailto:peter.dam...@btinternet.com) > > > > > (mailto:peter.dam...@btinternet.com)> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for > > > > > > philosophy, none > > > > > > of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism, > > > > > > empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is > > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are always going to be disagreements over what should constitute > > > > > a vital article. That isn't important to this discussion. I think most > > > > > people's top 1000 articles would have a lot of overlap (I expect most > > > > > of the top 100 VAs would appear at least somewhere in most people's > > > > > top 1000) and even articles in that overlap aren't particularly good > > > > > at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > > > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
