FAC Reviewed Options

[Ottava]

A review by David Lindsay (a Georgetown student, booooo!) reviewed FAC and Wiki's FAs. Surprise, surprise, Literature was not reviewed in the process. Some of the results might amuse you.

I emailed the dear chap to point out two things: 1) he should have done the core topics (science, history, literature, philosophy/religion, etc) that have comparable entries in Britannica or the such and 2) that not all FAs are the same.

But yes, I am sure that people here will have a lot of lovely things to say.

[thekohser]

I read about this days ago on the CPOV list. I didn't want to bring it to WR's attention, since I suck so bad.

[Milton Roe]

A review by David Lindsay (a Georgetown student, booooo!) reviewed FAC and Wiki's FAs. Surprise, surprise, Literature was not reviewed in the process. Some of the results might amuse you.

I emailed the dear chap to point out two things: 1) he should have done the core topics (science, history, literature, philosophy/religion, etc) that have comparable entries in Britannica or the such and 2) that not all FAs are the same.

But yes, I am sure that people here will have a lot of lovely things to say.

Too bad he didn't collect enough responses to be able to estimate an inter-rater alpha score. So we dunno what the expert score means, since we have no way of knowing if they are stable, and reproducable between raters who can't see each other's results.

So what if professor Jones gives some article a score of 9/10, if professor Smith only gives the same article a 5? That just leads to natural questions about the validity of your method. Which (of course!) we don't want.

Illustrative true story about raters: I once sent a grant proposal to the DoD for some military funding, in response to a public grant proposals request (it looked like something I'd been working on anyway-- you have no idea how many litterboxes there are for cats on military bases). They had no idea what to make of it, thinking it might be a 3 out of 5 score, so they sent it out to two outside reviewers. One reviewer thought it was the screwiest idea he'd ever heard of, and he also had never heard of me, so he gave it a 1 out of 5. The other thought it was the best idea since sliced bread, and gave it a 5/5, despite the fact he hadn't heard of me, either. The DoD had no idea what to make of tho such disparite scores, so they averaged them to a 3. No money.

Now, another organization with curiosity would have looked at those scores, and done some additional investigation to find out what the hell was going on, with such wild variation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) But this is Your Government. They weren't that curious. Score: 3. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

The FAC regulars had a blast with this review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...s_FAC_a_failure

[Ottava]

Now, another organization with curiosity would have looked at those scores, and done some additional investigation to find out what the hell was going on, with such wild variation.

Well, you did verify that the DoD did a better job finding a second person at least instead of going off of just one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How about three or four reviewers as a minimum? Would make sense.

[taiwopanfob]

The FAC regulars had a blast with this review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...s_FAC_a_failure

It comes as no surprise that to a man they all believe that the Sacred Policies of the project are trumping centuries of scholarship and the like. All those experts are "useless" because they have "no idea" about NPOV. SlimVirgin 'knowingly' rolling her eyes when one expert dismisses a position as false simply because some other expert says the opposite.

To the wikipediots, it's all a conspiracy: these experts have turf to defend, careers to make, and so forth. More mundane explanations like an unwillingness to educate nitwits who think scholarship is "useless", or are unwilling to use their heads instead of following Holy Writ, no matter how stupid the outcome may be.

The central lesson of last N centuries of progress, the one driven into every expert worthy the title is "you might be wrong", followed by careful training on how to tell one way or another. Wikipediots are simply unwilling to question their "pillars", unable to see their own turf defending, their own (worthless) wiki-careers ... the irony is thus lost completely on them.

[Casliber]

Yeah, it was a shame the review couldn't have been a bit more comprehensive or embellished a bit (didn't mention FAR, nor did it distinguish between articles' current state and that which might have been when it passed FAC , and I agree about more than one expert. Many many experts have views which do not lie in the centre of their fields of expertise.) Anyway, its a start I guess...

[Kelly Martin]

The FAC regulars had a blast with this review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...s_FAC_a_failure

It's interesting that they failed to recognize the purpose of the study, which was to determine if it is reasonable, when doing research about Wikipedia, to use the fact that a Wikipedia article is "featured" as an indication that the article is of high quality, and the conclusion that such a rule is potentially unwarranted. The Wikipedians chose to read far more into the study than the study's author was willing to say, and then criticize the study roundly for drawing conclusions that it did not actually draw.

[EricBarbour]

To the wikipediots, it's all a conspiracy: these experts have turf to defend, careers to make, and so forth. More mundane explanations like an unwillingness to educate nitwits who think scholarship is "useless", or are unwilling to use their heads instead of following Holy Writ, no matter how stupid the outcome may be.

As always, Wikipedia is infallible, and its critics are heretics.

(Odd, how much the FAC's behaviour resembles that of the Catholic Church, circa, oh, around 1209 or so.....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Theanima]

I never really participated in FAC, as it tends to be a tight clique of editors and any outsider view is frowned upon. I think there are better ways of creating top quality articles; for example, instead of seeking the shiny badge and a position on the WBFAN, editors could just be satisfied they produced a decent article without seeking recognition.

One person's definition of "high quality" differs from another. Likewise, some FACs get a huge amount of participation, and others get just three people.

Just my thoughts on FAC.

[Malleus]

I think there are better ways of creating top quality articles; for example, instead of seeking the shiny badge and a position on the WBFAN, editors could just be satisfied they produced a decent article without seeking recognition.

I expect that there are better ways, but how do you know your article is "decent" if nobody except you ever assesses it?

[Ottava]

I expect that there are better ways, but how do you know your article is "decent" if nobody except you ever assesses it?

I actually think this is decent even though it was never measured beyond the previous version before I expanded. It has some gaps and is far from finished, but yeah. There needs to be some grammar and language polishing. But you did say "decent" and not "good". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Theanima]

I think there are better ways of creating top quality articles; for example, instead of seeking the shiny badge and a position on the WBFAN, editors could just be satisfied they produced a decent article without seeking recognition.

I expect that there are better ways, but how do you know your article is "decent" if nobody except you ever assesses it?

As with RFA, most FACs are approved by a tiny bunch of people. Just because there was so-called consensus does not mean the candidate will be a good admin. Same with FAC. If I wrote something I believed was good enough, that's all that would matter for me. I don't care what the crowd at FAC think.

[Ottava]

As with RFA, most FACs are approved by a tiny bunch of people. Just because there was so-called consensus does not mean the candidate will be a good admin. Same with FAC. If I wrote something I believed was good enough, that's all that would matter for me. I don't care what the crowd at FAC think.

Can you link to anything you wrote, by chance? I mean, everyone knows the pages that I, Malleus, Iri, etc. have written.

[Milton Roe]

It comes as no surprise that to a man they all believe that the Sacred Policies of the project are trumping centuries of scholarship and the like. All those experts are "useless" because they have "no idea" about NPOV. SlimVirgin 'knowingly' rolling her eyes when one expert dismisses a position as false simply because some other expert says the opposite.

To the wikipediots, it's all a conspiracy: these experts have turf to defend, careers to make, and so forth. More mundane explanations like an unwillingness to educate nitwits who think scholarship is "useless", or are unwilling to use their heads instead of following Holy Writ, no matter how stupid the outcome may be.

Slimvirgin is actually on record as saying that WP should not use the world "pseudoscience" because it's (A) pejorative, and (B) meaningless. The second because what's scientific and what is not scientific, comes down merely to a question of WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT among outside writers. There's nothing objective about it.

I think basically she's a "social constructionist" when it comes to science. Theories of science are no more real to her than theories of politics or ethics or aesthetics or any other branch of philosophy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) The success of modern engineering to her must be a frigging miracle.

However, her view would explain much. Why not then use New York Times articles as sources on scientific fact? They have as much right to their opinion as anybody, and (actually) even more, since they're a "newspaper of record." The same for big government agencies and what their minions think. If they say it, it's verifiable and comes from a "reliable source " (the government by definition is a RS). Nevermind if it's "true" since not only doesn't WP care about that, but it's meaningless when it comes to real world science debates anyway.

[Ottava]

Slimvirgin is actually on record as saying that WP should not use the world "pseudoscience" because it's (A) pejorative, and (B) meaningless. The second because what's scientific and what is not scientific, comes down merely to a question of WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT among outside writers. There's nothing objective about it.

I think the problem is not "scientific" vs "non-scientific" but should be "science" vs "non-science". There are many approaches to literature that are rigorous and academic, but they should not be treated as science. However, there are approaches in linguistics and philology that should be (as it deals with the processes of sounds, letters, physiological interpretation, and the rest as opposed to philosophy and meaning).

Of course, Religion is not science. The Bible's pages should be treated different from, say, the pages on Toads. But then there are gray areas where there are things that are treated "Scientifically" but aren't science. Ghosts, for instance. Sure, they have scientific approaches but there is no actual science there. They have no actually captured ghosts, dissected them, and had dozens of studies analysing various parts. Instead, ghosts end up being more of a sociological discipline (how people respond to them, social customs surrounding, them, etc).

[A Horse With No Name]

I never really participated in FAC, as it tends to be a tight clique of editors and any outsider view is frowned upon. I think there are better ways of creating top quality articles; for example, instead of seeking the shiny badge and a position on the WBFAN, editors could just be satisfied they produced a decent article without seeking recognition.

One person's definition of "high quality" differs from another. Likewise, some FACs get a huge amount of participation, and others get just three people.

Just my thoughts on FAC.

Being a "featured article" on Wikipedia is like being the tallest office building in Casper, Wyoming -- really, no one cares at all. Emphasis on no one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

I never really participated in FAC, as it tends to be a tight clique of editors and any outsider view is frowned upon. I think there are better ways of creating top quality articles; for example, instead of seeking the shiny badge and a position on the WBFAN, editors could just be satisfied they produced a decent article without seeking recognition.

One person's definition of "high quality" differs from another. Likewise, some FACs get a huge amount of participation, and others get just three people.

Just my thoughts on FAC.

Being a "featured article" on Wikipedia is like being the tallest office building in Casper, Wyoming -- really, no one cares at all. Emphasis on no one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

A bunch of nobodies seem to care.

[GlassBeadGame]

I never really participated in FAC, as it tends to be a tight clique of editors and any outsider view is frowned upon. I think there are better ways of creating top quality articles; for example, instead of seeking the shiny badge and a position on the WBFAN, editors could just be satisfied they produced a decent article without seeking recognition.

One person's definition of "high quality" differs from another. Likewise, some FACs get a huge amount of participation, and others get just three people.

Just my thoughts on FAC.

Being a "featured article" on Wikipedia is like being the tallest office building in Casper, Wyoming -- really, no one cares at all. Emphasis on no one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

A bunch of nobodies seem to care.

I think you'd have to include yourself in that "bunch of nobodies". Nobody I know cares about the BFAN crap, for instance. Except you.

I'm assuming you're talking to the other nobody and are just too lazy to quote correctly. I had to Google "WBFAN" to figure out what it was.

I just noticed this:

The article is certainly interesting, but a piece of properly peer-reviewed scientific research it most definitely is not. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is First Monday faking its peer review process? Or is that just your way to impress them down on the WP notice board? I notice that august body of "peers" didn't call you on it.

[Ottava]

Easily passed FAC but then exposed as a major failure. Surprisingly, one person who did mention sourcing before it was restarted as seen here was Orlady.

The diff of passing and now doesn't reveal much. Much of the changes were from YellowMonkey prepping the FAR by removing links that don't match the content cited. That wouldn't explain the rest of the problems, such as citations not matching sources, things out of date being used for current stuff, etc.

I guess this goes to show that people are not doing enough to check sources vs content and probably taking a recognizable user and just accepting what they put forth. The same thing happened with Gary King and the Samus Aran page (I found quite a lot of plagiarism which people should have found before).

This post has been edited by Ottava: