|
Are Feature articles worth their salt?, Feature article quality evaluation shows they're a crock |
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
This has been posted by TCO on the FA talk page and seriously questions the value of FA to Wikipedia on Improving Wikipedia’s important articles! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...nt_articles.pdfAre articles with high reader page views more important than "niche" articles by FAC regulars that get few views per month? Is FAC a "walled garden" concentrating on "star collectors" (niche article polishers) that discourages NEW BLOOD and NEW IDEAS? This post has been edited by chrisoff:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
But if the FA is on a topic that hardly anyone reads? That is most of the FAs! "Ian Rose, star collector, has 6 FAs at an average page view of 254 (the lowest average of all 155 FAers, including all the dabblers)."Malleus brings up the Donner Party as a heavy hitter. But it was an article collaboration. Collaborated Featured Articles are more relevant than solo-nominated ones. (Monthly page views used to measure relevance.) Of the 151 FA's analyzed, "46 users had a single collaboration and 90 users had solo FAs only". Read the study! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...nt_articles.pdfThis post has been edited by chrisoff:
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 4:34pm) QUOTE(chrisoff @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 8:41pm) Malleus brings up the Donner Party as a heavy hitter. But it was an article collaboration.
And in what way does that disqualify it from consideration? I have many FA/GAs that get more than the arbitrary 3000 page views per month. Not sure how many of them I've written this year though. Quite likely you'll tell me though. Read the study! You dismiss the Vital articles like House, but you are answered by Johnbod: "Well over 100,000 per month apparently, probably mostly with homework, as for many of these articles; but they still deserve a better article than they currently get. Or maybe they want to know why the plumbing is bust, in which case, tough. What really pisses me off is truly dire stubs like [[English Renaissance]], where (until today) some 17,000 readers a month were told that "William Shakespeare, composed theatrical representations of the English take on life, death, and history", which had of course remained unchanged since 2005 (when the article overall was far better than this morning, I now see). That's over a million views. I do think that editors who are able to improve the worst of these without much effort have a responsibility to the project to spend some of their time doing so. At all levels we put far too much effort into new articles, as opposed to the long-untouched rubbish on significant topics we already have. Is Wikipedia for the world? Or just for you and Ottava? As the study asks: Why is production of new FAs dropping? •Bottlenecks of structure (page construction, time requirements)? •Reviewer limits (only a few trusted reviewers and no recruitment or training of top replacements)? •Unpleasant FAC atmosphere? Edit wars dissuading high investment in articles? Desired exclusivity? “Burnout� Others?
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 4:46pm) Read the study!
You dismiss the Vital articles like House...
Most of the "Vital" articles are crap topics with little solid academic publications. Things like "House" are so common, wide spread, etc, that making an encyclopedia article based on third party sources is practically impossible. It is like trying to determine the color of the sun by staring at it. An article like Samuel Johnson (chosen because it is a shared FA of Malleus and myself and you are referring to us both) is a truly "vital" article in the academic sense - it is a major figure that is historic, has a lot of academic sources, and is someone that an encyclopedia should be used to contain information on. The study merely assumed that those determining the "vital" status actually knew what they were doing, and they ignored other determiners of importance (other rankings or things like "does the traditional Britannica have an article on it?"). One of the problems is that people assume that editors are able to work on any topic and are willing to change topics. Instead, most FAC contributors specialize in a few topics of interest and don't care about anything else. This is good and bad, but it wont ever change. It is like complaining that there are too many people who want to study Math instead of study Biology. You can't really force them to go somewhere that they aren't interested in going. There was either a short story or an actual news report of a socialistic type society that randomly assigned jobs instead of providing people what jobs they are good at/have backgrounds in. The end result is that it doesn't work. Why? Because it would be impossible for it to work. That isn't human nature. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 5:35pm) QUOTE(chrisoff @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 4:46pm) Read the study!
You dismiss the Vital articles like House...
Most of the "Vital" articles are crap topics with little solid academic publications. Things like "House" are so common, wide spread, etc, that making an encyclopedia article based on third party sources is practically impossible. It is like trying to determine the color of the sun by staring at it. An article like Samuel Johnson (chosen because it is a shared FA of Malleus and myself and you are referring to us both) is a truly "vital" article in the academic sense - it is a major figure that is historic, has a lot of academic sources, and is someone that an encyclopedia should be used to contain information on. The study merely assumed that those determining the "vital" status actually knew what they were doing, and they ignored other determiners of importance (other rankings or things like "does the traditional Britannica have an article on it?"). You speak volumes! Clearly your little world is not the one that Wikipedia.org is aiming for exclusively. Jimbo is reaching toward India! And the rest of the world. Can you believe that there is soon to be a time when no one will care about Samuel Johnson? House (as in structure) is more important globally.
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 24th November 2011, 8:06am) Why would that matter to a student? It isn't a page on home ownership, and even if it was it couldn't be a guide. And why would homes in India be the same as homes here? What is the point of that question?
Do you think Wikipedia is just for students? Just for people like you? You probably agree with this "so-called" FA editor (who is probably pissed that she wasn't mentioned in TCO's report at all), whose response to the points made in the report - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...nt_articles.pdf was this: QUOTE "I think one of the most important retorts to this is that people already know about most vital topics. I know what history is." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462151898 At least it got the FAC talk page going, which has been fairly dead lately. And the FAC director managed to drive Jimmy Butler's biology class from Wikipedia. He announced that he is pulling out at the end of the year, a professor whose class has been praised by others on wiki. QUOTE "We will be pulling out of Wikipedia in January. I will remain off the discussion pages and focus all my energies on the student's efforts. For many reasons (not specific to this current concern), this is the projects last year. So please accept my apology and I will soon drop off the radar." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462220611But of course, the FA director must have the LAST WORD, worrying that her skiing vacation next week will be disrupted by the poor teacher's student edits and will: QUOTE expect me to be available to help when I'm skiing next week (The FA director is a little self absorbed!) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462229131This post has been edited by chrisoff:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 24th November 2011, 8:33am)
Do you think Wikipedia is just for students?
I'd rather it be just for students than the current situation where the target audience is apparently sex crazed gay white males (or, at least, gay males turned on by white guys) who want to use the place as a hosting gallery/pick up site. Thekohser QUOTE You appear to assume that no high school students or college "kids" have any intention of entering the home building trade, .... Um... what? Why would the page "House" be about the "home building trade"? Why would people in India care about such a thing? Why would that even be "vital" or "encyclopedic"? Do college kids really care about the history of the home building trade and that it would actually help them get involved? Wikipedia isn't a "howto" guide. QUOTE . I count among my local "grown up" friends, not one -- but two -- men who went to college and now own their own home construction and remodeling businesses. You obviously have my personal information, so you would obviously know what business my brother is involved in. And no, he would not find Wikipedia any use in said business. He has actual books and resources, magazines, etc. Malleus Don't feed SBJ. Unfortunately, someone got drunk and decided to replace GBG with him. It makes sense since both are unbelievable asses who serve no purpose except to harass people. The problem is, I can no longer ignore him and neither can everyone else. He is a known stalker and yet no one on Wikipedia has a problem with him still being an admin. A Horse lost his ability to edit for doing far, far less than SBJ has done towards myself and others. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 24th November 2011, 7:03pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 24th November 2011, 6:17pm) Why would the page "House" be about the "home building trade"? Why would people in India care about such a thing?
You're actually serious with these inane questions, aren't you? Wow. P.S. I have no idea who your brother is. I am serious. The page "house" would be about the ideas of house. Of all the things, the "home building trade" would be the least of things to make it onto the page. The page would most likely be filled with the thousands of -styles- of homes, and then what people would do with them (customs and the like). The history of homes would then come next. "Home building trade" would be on its own page, and would not be anything of such a high priority. And this is ignoring the idea that a "house" and a "home" are two very different things. And you did know who my brother was because you made references to him once before. Topics such as "home building trade" cannot adequately be put into an encyclopedia. There are trade magazines, construction/contractor books, etc. As I pointed out before, Wikipedia is not a howto guide. It is a reference tool.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 25th November 2011, 12:36am) QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 24th November 2011, 9:25pm) And you did know who my brother was because you made references to him once before.
I did? Where? Meanwhile, what do you make of this attempt to make an encyclopedia article about the history of construction? That doesn't belong on Wikipedia, right? .... How do you get that from me saying that the page -House- shouldn't be deemed "vital"? According to the page you just linked, it is not part of a WikiProject nor ranked as anything. It is also not the page you were talking about before. Also only has 3,318 views. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. o.o;; Carbuncle QUOTE I rate this trolling 2 out of 10. For one thing, if you're trying to get people stirred up with your homophobic comments, you're in the wrong place. For another, this reads more like a fantasy of yours than a description of WP.
Um, how did you miss that it was an obvious reference to the 1,000 images of white penises? By the way, I think it is kinda amusing that you assume that all homosexuality equal horny white exhibitionists. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |