Are Feature articles worth their salt?, Feature article quality evaluation shows they're a crock Options

[chrisoff]

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.pdf

Are 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:

[Ottava]

The articles I worked on were all highly viewed and traditional when it came to academia.

However, most of the articles at FAC were obscure animals, obscure roads, obscure bands, obscure military battles, etc.

[Eppur si muove]

The articles I worked on were all highly viewed and traditional when it came to academia.

However, most of the articles at FAC were obscure animals, obscure roads, obscure bands, obscure military battles, etc.

You forgot about obscure weather events.

Personally I think that Wikipedia is most helpful with producing medium-obscure content where there is some academic value. There are plenty of places you can find out about Michael Jackson on the web. There are relatively few where you can find out about Mary Wollstonecraft. I would regard the latter as much more valuable than the former, never mind the hits.

[chrisoff]

The articles I worked on were all highly viewed and traditional when it came to academia.

However, most of the articles at FAC were obscure animals, obscure roads, obscure bands, obscure military battles, etc.

The review divides FA editors into categories.

Dabblers: Typically a single FA on a low view topic . Example: Harrias writing “Herbie Hewitt”, a 19th century cricket player.

Star collectors: High production of FA stars by emphasizing low-relevance content.like Malleus, Ealdgyth, Casliber, Ucucha, Brianboulton etc. that work on obscure articles with few page views per month and not on important articles.

Champions: Typically a single FA on an important topic. An example is user Jakob.scholbach writing “Logarithm”.

Battleships: Multiple high impact FAs. An example is user Hawkeye writing “Manhattan Project” and “Leslie Groves”. (These editors can also be Star collectors.)

"Champions deliver more value than star collectors, per capita and overall: High relevance/low production beats low relevance/high production."

"Star collecting delivers little benefit as a segment.
•Even though there are almost twice as many star collectors as champions, the champion group delivers eight times the value.
•Star collectors and dabblers together deliver only 7% of overall FA viewer impact."

"Ucucha had 14 times the stars as Garrando in 2011 JAN-SEP. But since Garrando’s single article has 180 times the popularity of Ucucha’s average article, Garrando had 13 times the total reader impact. Champion beats star collector."

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Rhindle]

The thing is how long can an FA keep its status without eroding? Subtle vandals can just water down that featured article and it can ultimately end up total crap because "anyone can edit." Sure, there are those who protect articles but how many years can you keep that up? If you can just say once an article reaches FA status it should be locked up and just be updated when something new comes up. However, the culture over there will never allow it.

This post has been edited by Rhindle:

[chrisoff]

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.pdf

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Ottava]

The thing is how long can an FA keep it's status without eroding? Subtle vandals can just water down that featured article and it can ultimately end up total crap because "anyone can edit." Sure, there are those who protect articles but how many years can you keep that up? If you can just say once an article reaches FA status it should be locked up and just be updated when something new comes up. However, the culture over there will never allow it.

Good point. Amandajm came to To Autumn and pretty much destroyed it by introducing plagiarism, altering text to say the opposite of the sources, etc. Most people refused to care even when there was lots of proof to that effect. Ceoil even stuck up for her and tried to defend her actions even though all evidence was that the user had a long history of plagiarizing. Much of the plagiarism and other problems is still in the page, unfortunately.



Chrisoff - going off of views, here are mine (30 day period per the stat links):

* Samuel Johnson 41,600
* Ode on a Grecian Urn - 15,404
* To Autumn - 9,848
* The Lucy poems - 4,889
* The Drapier's Letters - 1,175
* Ode on Indolence - 1,049
* The Author's Farce - 636
* Early life of Samuel Johnson - 535
* Christopher Smart's asylum confinement - 507
* Nicolo Giraud - 469
* The Covent-Garden Journal - 369



This post has been edited by Ottava:

[chrisoff]

Chrisoff - going off of views, here are mine (30 day period per the stat links):

Ottava, this study concentrates on recent FA's, from January to September 2011. The study is on the relevance of FAC in general. DON'T just think of yourself!

Study conclusion: (considering the heavy lifting and resources FAC consumes)

As Wikipedia transitions from quantity to quality, GA is carrying the load. FA is not pulling its weight.

[Malleus]

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.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[timbo]

Feature Articles are a crock, plain and simple -- a diversion of scarce editorial resources from actual productive work to pious wankery and resumé padding. The whole A-class/Good Article/Feature Article scheme needs to be tossed out the window, to be replaced by an any-user-awardable A-class designation.

Criteria for A-class should include (a) substantial length; (b) coherent prose; © complete coverage of the topic; (d) multiple illustrations; and (e) full and accurate footnoting.

The entire GA/FA superior dance that one sees is a manifestation of a bureaucratic mentality.


t

[chrisoff]

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?

[Eppur si muove]

Chrisoff - going off of views, here are mine (30 day period per the stat links):

* Samuel Johnson 41,600
* Ode on a Grecian Urn - 15,404
* To Autumn - 9,848
* The Lucy poems - 4,889
* The Drapier's Letters - 1,175
* Ode on Indolence - 1,049
* The Author's Farce - 636
* Early life of Samuel Johnson - 535
* Christopher Smart's asylum confinement - 507
* Nicolo Giraud - 469
* The Covent-Garden Journal - 369

All good solid subjects. My last solo GA had 152 but it's useful when the thing is going to be performed somewhere.

The official Wikimedia head office line on value is influenced by their wanting to take over the world. Mine is that organising knowledge that is not immediately available on the web is more useful.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[timbo]

I've just taken a look at that pdf at the top of this thread.

That is one of the most nauseating pieces of shit that I've ever seen.


t


Here's a gem...

"Even though Wikipedia is 10 years old, the 5th most viewed site on the Internet, and contains 3 million+ articles, 85% of its Vital Articles are still...unsatisfactory."

And who makes a "vital" article a "vital" article? Bureaucrats.

Then, jump from that into the automatic assumption that every article that hasn't been put through the bureaucratic gauntlet is...................... "unsatisfactory."

Hey, fuck you, asshole!!!

I've submitted none of my articles to the A/GA/FA process and I never will. When I'm done, it's a B -- and it's perfectly......................... satisfactory.

This post has been edited by timbo:

[Vigilant]

The thing is how long can an FA keep it's status without eroding? Subtle vandals can just water down that featured article and it can ultimately end up total crap because "anyone can edit." Sure, there are those who protect articles but how many years can you keep that up? If you can just say once an article reaches FA status it should be locked up and just be updated when something new comes up. However, the culture over there will never allow it.

Good point. Amandajm came to To Autumn and pretty much destroyed it by introducing plagiarism, altering text to say the opposite of the sources, etc. Most people refused to care even when there was lots of proof to that effect. Ceoil even stuck up for her and tried to defend her actions even though all evidence was that the user had a long history of plagiarizing. Much of the plagiarism and other problems is still in the page, unfortunately.



Chrisoff - going off of views, here are mine (30 day period per the stat links):

* Samuel Johnson 41,600
* Ode on a Grecian Urn - 15,404
* To Autumn - 9,848
* The Lucy poems - 4,889
* The Drapier's Letters - 1,175
* Ode on Indolence - 1,049
* The Author's Farce - 636
* Early life of Samuel Johnson - 535
* Christopher Smart's asylum confinement - 507
* Nicolo Giraud - 469
* The Covent-Garden Journal - 369

When you divide your article view stats by the mean for all visited articles, they approach zero relevance with great rapidity.

Happy to help.

[chrisoff]

Summary recommendations:

*For authors" change drive from "number of stickers" to "total viewed content Featured/Good".

*For FA program: elect leaders, recruit new writers, improve FAC processes.

*For WMF managements: support community efforts by addressing the quality gap publicly.

Upgrading the high-view articles is high "band for the buck". A few people can drive significant, visible improvements for the public's encyclopedia.

[Malleus]

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.

You are familiar with the TV series entitled House I take It? That's what people are looking for, not some rambling essay on places in which people live.

[chrisoff]

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.

You are familiar with the TV series entitled House I take It? That's what people are looking for, not some rambling essay on places in which people live.

Sorry! It's House as in the structure! Look it up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House

See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/House

Remember, we aren't all middle class western academics.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Ottava]

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]

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.

[Malleus]

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.

You are familiar with the TV series entitled House I take It? That's what people are looking for, not some rambling essay on places in which people live.

Sorry! It's House as in the structure! Look it up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House

See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/House

Remember, we aren't all middle class western academics.

No need to apologise for being a complete dick. If you give it just a moment's thought you'll see that your talking complete and utter rubbish, as per usual.

[Eppur si muove]

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.

And it is no surprise that this is a joint development. There is going to be a strong correlation between the number of times an article is viewed and the number of contributors and this means that popular subjects to read are more likely to have editors willing to collaborate on reaching a milestone.

Of my various recognised content, the article on Wagner is the only one with more than two significant contributors. Most of the ones I've pushed up on my own are self-contained with little source material out there which makes it easy to manage on my own. However, they have relatively few views which will make the Wikimedia beancounters think I have wasted my time.

My solo GA which has attained the magic 3000 hits a month is Troilus. It is a significant subject with lots of academic sources. However, it is not a collectible card game, hurricane or sporting season and therefore does not appeal greatly to the typical Wikipedian. I've at various times toyed with the idea of getting it to FA, but it is such a big topic that I feel rather lost as to what to do next. It would benefit from access to an academic library. (And anyway Jimbo is a dickhead so why should I dedicate the amount of time required?) A callaborator would help address all but the third problem but this introduces a different way of working. Some people prefer to work on their own and if what they produce is only read by a couple of thousand people a year, then that's fine and only Jimbo's lackeys find it a problem.

[Ottava]

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.

1. "House" is too generic of a term. What those in India consider a house is not the same as those in the US.

2. Pages like "House" are better served in wikitionary and not with an encyclopedia article.

3. India, like China and Japan, has a large amount of interest in British literature. You'd be amazed by the thousands of Asian PhDs in English Literature. Their publication standards tend to be low, and much of it tends towards comparative analysis, but it isn't the lack of interest as you claim.

Furthermore, a page on "house" will not help high school and college kids get ahead. Pages that are truly encyclopedic and truly vital would.

[thekohser]

Furthermore, a page on "house" will not help high school and college kids get ahead. Pages that are truly encyclopedic and truly vital would.

Jeffrey, have you ever owned a house that wasn't handed down to you by your parents? Just askin'.

[radek]

The articles I worked on were all highly viewed and traditional when it came to academia.

However, most of the articles at FAC were obscure animals, obscure roads, obscure bands, obscure military battles, etc.

Dude. You're missing one:

"OBSCURE SHIPS"

and within that category

"OBSCURE SUBMARINES"

(ok, that maybe more of a GA problem)

[radek]

The thing is how long can an FA keep its status without eroding? Subtle vandals can just water down that featured article and it can ultimately end up total crap because "anyone can edit." Sure, there are those who protect articles but how many years can you keep that up? If you can just say once an article reaches FA status it should be locked up and just be updated when something new comes up. However, the culture over there will never allow it.

I've thought about this before too - cynically, and all. So you get an article you care about to FA status. The thing to do THEN is to make a sockpuppet and start vandalizing your own FA. Then use your legitimate account to request protection. And usually once that's in place, the admins loose interest so it can be protected more or less indefinitely (if someone removes it, go back to step one).

It's sort of a "ghetto flagged revisions" for a system that refuses to implement them but badly needs'em.

Of course I've never done anything like this, but it makes sense.

[Ottava]

Furthermore, a page on "house" will not help high school and college kids get ahead. Pages that are truly encyclopedic and truly vital would.

Jeffrey, have you ever owned a house that wasn't handed down to you by your parents? Just askin'.

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?

[chrisoff]

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:

"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.

"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=462220611

But 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:

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=462229131

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[thekohser]

Furthermore, a page on "house" will not help high school and college kids get ahead. Pages that are truly encyclopedic and truly vital would.

Jeffrey, have you ever owned a house that wasn't handed down to you by your parents? Just askin'.

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?

You appear to assume that no high school students or college "kids" have any intention of entering the home building trade, and that they would have no use of a solid, encyclopedic background of the "house". 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.

So, the point of my question was to perhaps flesh out a theory of mind about how you could say something so patently wrong, and I thought it may be because you've never had to make a large purchase of something like a house, and so you've never thought too carefully about the industry that makes houses appear across the land.

I'll assume from your response that, no, you have never owned a house that wasn't handed down to you from your parents.

[chrisoff]

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.

Malleus, the FAC director can't stand the idea of collaboration. See how she has gone off on the FAC talk page and else where, slinging insults at her "enemies", TCO, Jimmy Butler (the teacher), Piortus, and others? And even Sp33dyphil, just because he received praise!

For example, she dings Jimmy Butler for this remark:

Collaboration is the key to the projects success. However, when we are successful, some argue that it is due to collaboration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462196143

Poor guy, he's just a teacher.

[SB_Johnny]

I'll assume from your response that, no, you have never owned a house that wasn't handed down to you from your parents.

I'm pretty sure he's never owned a house at all, because his parents are still using most of it (aside from the basement, which he owns). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

I'll assume from your response that, no, you have never owned a house that wasn't handed down to you from your parents.

I'm pretty sure he's never owned a house at all, because his parents are still using most of it (aside from the basement, which he owns). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Let's get this right; are you saying that the reason you think he's never owned a house is because you think he owns the basement of a house that his parents are occupying? Does that really make any kind of sense to you?

[Ottava]

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

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.

. 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:

[thekohser]

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.

P.P.S. Happy Thanksgiving.

[chrisoff]

You can bet that Iridescent (the Arbcom member who was kicked off Arbcom for "inactivity" just recently) is glad he disappeared!

SandyGeorgia, the FAC director, is busy carrying on her raging venomous respond to TCO's "analysis" of FAC to Iridescent's talk page because of the "Waddesdon Road railway station" case study, a critique of the article Iridescent got passed recently in FAC, an example of "Obscure topics getting inadequate content review" at FAC.

*Waddesdon Road railway station” lacks reliable sources.
*Only 5 pages are used to reference the 4 paragraphs of real station-related content. The impression is that these are stray facts from discussion of the Brill Tramway.
*The sources are self-publishing hobbyists.
etc. (from TCO study)

(SandyGeorge post on Iridescent talk page) No, I think it's [[User:TCO|someone else who misses that point]]; it reads like a "Manic Manifesto" from someone who pounded out a pseudoanalysis based on faulty assumptions, ...

(She seems unable just to simply address the issues. Has to attack all critics personally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462203839

[Ottava]

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.

[thekohser]

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?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[carbuncle]

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.

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.

[Ottava]

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

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:

[carbuncle]

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.

Ooooooooooooooooh, you were making a joke! That might have made more sense if the discussion wasn't explicitly about "Wikipedia", not Commons. I have no idea what you are trying to say in your second sentence.

[chrisoff]

Some FAC pros are rising to the occasion! At least one contributor of heavy hitting articles, not just trivia are way more open minded than the defensive FAC clique:

User:Truthkeeper88 is replying to TCO in an open minded way! And actually submitted one of her FAC's to an outside expert in the field for her aricle on Edmund Evans and got the response: "My pleasure! Congratulations on your exemplary piece, rich and full." And on her talk page, responds in a way that doesn't shut down the dialogue. Not defensive, not bragging but seeking to understand! Was even willing to interact with TCO when he was posting as an IP.

And others also, were open-minded, willing to consider and engage:

Hurricanehink says "I'll admit, being called a star collector made me more inclined to work on Hurricane Andrew, so for me at least, I welcome some criticism." He was motivated by the critique, not moved to be defensive.

Ceoil engages TCO in a real conversation on TCO's talk page than looks to lead to greater understanding of what is going on. A true exchange of ideas! And Ceoil didn't take TCO labelling him as a "dabbler" as a reason not to take analysis seriously. Rather, he accepted the label with good humour and opened the channels of communication

Hawkeye7 brings up real concerns in an open way, seeking feedback on the FAC talk page.

Carcharoth (perpetually out grouper among the FAC regulars) brings up concerns about the need for leadership in FAC on the talk page.

Resolute is offering good suggestions and advice on the FAC talk to reach out to other editors and be helpful to them in their efforts to produce a FA. Attempting to enlarge the small circle. Constructive! A Join Us message!

Perhaps this will be a FAC discussion with a wider group of participants than the usual crowd. New ideas! New blood! Real discussion without defensiveness.

Other signs of hope! TCO did a massive analysis. Good will come if the information can be used dispassionately, if the FAC regulars are willing to interact and don't shut down all chances of real discussion.

*P.S. But SandyGeorgia, don't waste all your energy trying to sandbag TCO and other "enemies" (as you perceive Kiefer.Wolfowitz to be). Like you are now doing by posting on Nikkimaria regarding a DYK request by KW and his post on TCO's page. Drop the stick!

This post has been edited by chrisoff: