Article you would most like to own Options

[Emperor]

What article would you most like to own? I mean, you can control its content and make it say whatever you want.

[Mister Die]

90% of the Albanian articles dealing with subjects from 1912-1991. Not too much of a point in "OWN"ing one article if all of its surrounding ones of interest are terrible. If I had to choose though, then Enver Hoxha, since the present article is fairly lame and is slowly getting worse with random additions of no particular relevance and poor sourcing (and before anyone asks, I do intend to "fix it.")

It really is weird that Wikipedia thinks "OWN"ing articles is a great evil. Obviously if you treat it stupidly so that someone named Heilhitler1488 could be like "Hi! I'd like to be the very first person to try out the five-month trial of OWNing the Adolf Hitler article!" then it'd obviously suck, but I see no reason why recognized specialists, experts and general people with interest shouldn't have the ability to jointly "OWN" articles. That'd actually be a proper use of a "people's encyclopedia" concept, since it wouldn't require you to have a degree and sip latte or whatever, just a demonstrable interest in the subject of an article along with the ability to write well and source correctly.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Fri 27th April 2012, 8:33pm

[Fusion]

I see no reason why recognized specialists, experts and general people with interest shouldn't have the ability to jointly "OWN" articles.

I suspect that such would be a recipe for many troubles. The "general people with interest" would soon infuriate the specialists and experts, even if they are not there to grind axes and the more so if they have strong POVs.

[Bottled_Spider]

What article would you most like to own? I mean, you can control its content and make it say whatever you want.

This one.
The good thing about owning that article is that I really, really could make it say whatever you want and no-one would know that it was really a truly subtle piece of vandalism and factual at the same time.

[Mister Die]

I see no reason why recognized specialists, experts and general people with interest shouldn't have the ability to jointly "OWN" articles.

I suspect that such would be a recipe for many troubles. The "general people with interest" would soon infuriate the specialists and experts, even if they are not there to grind axes and the more so if they have strong POVs.

Troubles comparable to having an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?

Edit: There's all sorts of ways one can approach an enforced owning of articles, really. How about if someone or a person with colleagues gets an article to FA status? I can't see the harm in giving them ownership of the article so long as they are reasonably active, seeing as how they obviously know what they're doing.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sat 28th April 2012, 8:41am

[Web Fred]

The Muhammed article...Muahaaaa

[Mister Die]

The Muhammed article...Muahaaaa

Well at least they'd know who to target.

[Emperor]

I want WWII.

[Mister Die]

I want WWII.

That would be an article which would require collaboration with other people. Same thing with Nazi Germany and the Allies in general.

The nice thing though is that this means there could be teamwork on such articles, e.g. one guy could be in charge of the economic aspect of the war, some guys on the actual fights, some guys on leadership and politics, a guy on diplomacy, some miscellaneous guys filling out more obscure areas, and so on.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sat 28th April 2012, 3:52pm

[Fusion]

Troubles comparable to having an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?

A different sort of trouble, I would say. At present, many experts don't bother to try to dominate articles because they know it is hopeless. No doubt many experts have tried and left in disgust. But if they think they have been given some sort of control and then find their expertise ignored or belittled, then maybe they get more annoyed.