Hoi,
Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to understand.
I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a necessity to understand what
is being said.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 March 2016 at 14:13, Stephen Philbrick <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one will be
> opposed to the goal.
>
> However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
> work.
>
>
>
> *Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
> Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the English Wikipedia. I
> note that page has a scope section with no content as yet. However, I think
> taking on the entire English Wikipedia is biting off too much initially.
> Projects such as this work best if started as a pilot project. While
> someone may envision this eventually applying to all languages and treat
> English as the pilot, there is no way in which a project who scope is over
> 5 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
> much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the purview
> of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
> importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> initiatives of editors in that area.
>
>
> *Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a group
> called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these WMF
> employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?
>
>
> *Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
> Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on any
> particular article, as that article could change literally seconds later. I
> see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
> likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
> but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
> been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
> add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection. It
> would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only qualified
> editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
> changes. The second option will require a whole new level of bureaucracy.
>
>
> *Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that
> RAAFA
> is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that all
> articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
> implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
> meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
> RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital articles?
>
>
>
> Sphilbrick
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
