I'm confused as to why people would mention Veropedia - 1. the articles aren't really worked on once they are over there, 2. they aren't really built by experts, and 3. They don't really reflect the best articles (especially when the standards were so low back when it started).
A good idea would be to monitor the FAC and GAN articles as they come in, or those that should be either. Once you find good candidates on solid topics, you take the articles, you have an expert or too add to it and make it well balanced, then have a core group of copyeditors fix it up, standardize it, etc.
Basically, it would take the articles that the Wiki system can pump out to about 60-70% "good" and bring them the last 100%. You can especially fix errors like the popculture obsession, unreadably huge pages, etc. and show how the articles are fixed on a talk page comparison.
The benefits would be to keep them from being degraded, ensure that they are all high quality, and polish them to a recognizably good standard. Veropedia didn't do that.
|