maybe I've been around for too long but rings a
bell or two, I'm sure its still used by editors and projects to "grade"
with most projects having their own internal assessment areas both on
quality and importance

then we have community wide FA, GA, peer review all of whom attest to how
comprehensive an article. And then there the one project to rule them all

Except very clearly we have an accept policy guide for all projects that
says "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no
special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose
their preferences on articles

another project isnt needed to improve content or make people work
together, or to retain experienced editors there are already over 2000
projects who's scope includes doing that on differing subject matters

Accuracy implies something that is an absolute, but we have key pillars
that only require being neutral, and that means even inaccurate information
should be presented depending on the significance of its POV

On 25 March 2016 at 19:14, Andy Mabbett <> wrote:

> On 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac <>
> wrote:
> > We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> Accuracy"
> I see from:
> that there is already a "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval."
> Burn it with fire, and salt the ashes.
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

President Wikimedia Australia
Photo Gallery:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to