--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki <[email protected]> wrote: > From: wiki <[email protected]>
> 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. Precisely. FWIW, this is what I recommended to the scholar I mentioned earlier (who has written several books on the Jehovah's Witnesses): Go ahead, announce your intention on the article's talk page and at the relevant WikiProject, write the article, and then present it to the wider community for adoption. I assured him that Wikipedia would welcome the article, once it was formatted and referenced correctly, over the likely objections of both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Witness-bashers frequenting the article. I haven't heard back from him ... :) If we want to have scholars contributing, this is an option that has to be on the table. Andreas > 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 > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
