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

[chrisoff]

It's just strange why the "FAC regulars" would rather expend enormous bandwidth attacking TCO and then attacking a SignPost editor Skomorokh who said to Moni3 that her comment to the SignPost was Out of line:

"I had hoped you would want to write the response, as you had indicated, but you have chosen to cast aspersions on my integrity and intellectual honesty instead. Rash jumping to conclusions and mean-spiritedness is not at all what I would have expected from you."

Skomorokh says to Mon3 of her attack on him and on the SignPost opinion page:

"Is it your position that those whose writings cause scandals be seen and not heard in the subsequent coverage? That they not be interviewed or publicly debate their critics? That only one side of the issue be given coverage? If that is the idea of impartial journalism you are propounding then these standards are low indeed. Why don't you channel the intensity of your feeling into showing the community just why TCO's approach to the issue is wrong ... ?"

As SandyGeorgia told the DYK people:

"If folks are shamed or embarrassed at having their work reviewed, Wikipedia would be a very hard place for them to be and probably not a good fit, because that is exactly what Wikipedia is-- or is supposed to be-- about. We improve by having our work reviewed by others ..."

After all, FA editors list their achievements on their user pages and the editors are ranked by number of FAs at WP:BFAN. FA editors get their articles displayed in a big chunk on the main page (however obscure the article). They have a method of determining what is a FA, a cumbersome process that allows only "FA editors" special privileges (they can nominate more that one article at a time, their comments are given more weight). This gives "FA editor" a leg up in racking up more FAs.

So why are they "hurt" by being named in TCOs analysis, when they advertise their FAs at every turn, rate themselves by number of FAs, and mention "their" articles at every chance? Is there no accountability for all the main page exposure they receive?

The FA director was appointed many years ago, apparently for life. He exercises no leadership but is given deference. One of the three "FA delegates" SandyGeorgia, has more "power" than the other two and is given deference by all "FA editors". After all, when you are busy pushing your own FAs, you can hardly afford to alienate her. That would be suicide.

Why aren't the positions at FA decided openly, by elections for example, as TCO suggests? Why are SandyGeorgia and Moni3 posting personal attacks and derogatory statements about TCO thither and yon but refusing to give a reasoned opinion to the SignPost?

Why are the FA people not accountable to anyone else? Why is nothing out in the open? Does SandyGeorgia's attack the SignPost because it won't do her bidding? She can't bully them as she does everyone else?

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Mon 28th November 2011, 3:35pm

[The Joy]

Wowww!!!

FAC talk is heating up big time. While people like Mike Christie try to make constructive suggestions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=469615437

SandyGeorgia throws up her walls of defensive text, attacking her "enemies" and deflecting any attempts to address FAC problems, contributing to the divisive, hateful atmosphere there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=469599403

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=469615650

Sheeeeeesh!

If SandyGeorgia was to leave Wikipedia, do you believe that the FA process would be instantly "saved" or are there systemic problems that hinder it?

[Kelly Martin]

If SandyGeorgia was to leave Wikipedia, do you believe that the FA process would be instantly "saved" or are there systemic problems that hinder it?

I see no reason to believe that teh communiteh would select a replacement that was any better. Most of the people who object to SG's rule are mad not because she does it wrong, but because it's her, and not them, being allowed to do it, and if given the chance would be just as tyrannical and wrongheaded as she is.

[Ottava]

and if given the chance would be just as tyrannical and wrongheaded as she is.

Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? If it weren't for the tyranny and the wrongheadedness, I would say there would only be a few users.

[Malleus]

and if given the chance would be just as tyrannical and wrongheaded as she is.

Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? If it weren't for the tyranny and the wrongheadedness, I would say there would only be a few users.

Wikipedia is a rudderless ship. There's a much-needed place for benign dictatorship, but not Jimbo's naive and mindless dictatorship.

[mbz1]

Wikipedia is a rudderless ship. There's a much-needed place for benign dictatorship, but not Jimbo's naive and mindless dictatorship.

Would you repeat this on wiki
BTW you said a few times that your block will end only, when you decide, and only, if there is change on wikipedia. Your block has ended, but was there a change? I did not notice.

[Ottava]

and if given the chance would be just as tyrannical and wrongheaded as she is.

Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? If it weren't for the tyranny and the wrongheadedness, I would say there would only be a few users.

Wikipedia is a rudderless ship. There's a much-needed place for benign dictatorship, but not Jimbo's naive and mindless dictatorship.

Can't we just appoint someone like Prince William? He has the royal heritage and would seem to be more appropriate to the role of a monarch with his own religion.

[Zoloft]

and if given the chance would be just as tyrannical and wrongheaded as she is.

Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? If it weren't for the tyranny and the wrongheadedness, I would say there would only be a few users.

Wikipedia is a rudderless ship. There's a much-needed place for benign dictatorship, but not Jimbo's naive and mindless dictatorship.

Can't we just appoint someone like Prince William? He has the royal heritage and would seem to be more appropriate to the role of a monarch with his own religion.

Then we here in the Colonies could again have all the fun of dressing up as Native Americans, throwing tea over the side of a ship in Boston harbor, loading flintlock rifles with black powder, and unfairly hiding behind trees.

[Ottava]

and if given the chance would be just as tyrannical and wrongheaded as she is.

Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? If it weren't for the tyranny and the wrongheadedness, I would say there would only be a few users.

Wikipedia is a rudderless ship. There's a much-needed place for benign dictatorship, but not Jimbo's naive and mindless dictatorship.

Can't we just appoint someone like Prince William? He has the royal heritage and would seem to be more appropriate to the role of a monarch with his own religion.

Then we here in the Colonies could again have all the fun of dressing up as Native Americans, throwing tea over the side of a ship in Boston harbor, loading flintlock rifles with black powder, and unfairly hiding behind trees.

But isn't that kinda how the WMF works now? After all, the gathered protests, mobs, etc., just seem like the desire to find any excuse to act that way. Everyone seems to want to use the Wiki for their own pet protests lately.

[Malleus]

Wikipedia is a rudderless ship. There's a much-needed place for benign dictatorship, but not Jimbo's naive and mindless dictatorship.

Would you repeat this on wiki
BTW you said a few times that your block will end only, when you decide, and only, if there is change on wikipedia. Your block has ended, but was there a change? I did not notice.

There are many things you don't notice grasshopper.

[SB_Johnny]

[ Note: scads of posts keeping us up to date on Sandy Georgia's evildoings are now here. ]

[Mister Die]

As others have said, the big problem with Featured Articles is that, rather than being treated like articles which are truly informative, well-written and well-organized, they basically just get a "this is a nice article" stamp on them and, well, that's about it save for the chance of getting them on the frontpage. I feel that featured articles should be treated as ones which have basically achieved a "this really can't get any better than it is" status and therefore should be locked with any changes made either by the editor(s) responsible for making it a featured article in the first place, or done via the talk pages on a well-informed basis.

One big problem with featured articles as a concept on Wikipedia, though, is that they generally contradict what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. They aren't done by tons of users over the course of years, but are almost always achieved either by one single user or by two or three working closely together on a subject they genuinely know a lot about through actual research, and therefore these articles do not attain their status via the principle of "everyone can edit," but on the basis of "one, two or three smart persons have created/edited this article and no one has come along to make it suck yet."

There are probably a fair amount of people who might be willing to take a shot at creating/editing articles and striving for featured status, but who don't feel like it since it'd just decay under 30+ anonymous individuals throughout successive years.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Mon 30th January 2012, 6:12am

[chrisoff]

SandyGeorge has been warned to stop the personal attacks, calling editors socks without any attempt at proof, by Elen of the Roads

SandyGeorgia doesn't "get" it.

OK Sandy, I'll make it simple for you. What is not fair is to keep dropping dark hints that the individual is 'abusing' cleanstart, you know who they are etc, but never actually put it up for investigation.

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Thu 2nd February 2012, 6:26pm

[chrisoff]

A new idea for a competing FAC!

This is a sandbox suggestion. Will Raul654 threaten to ban the editor as he did with the editor who previously made a suggestion on a talk page?


Now previously "good girl" Moonriddengirl is under suspect!


(She was SandyGeorgia's Knight in Shinning Armour to smash plagarism.)

But as SandyGeorgia notes, she unblocked Enemy Alarbus

Add more to SandyGeorgia's "Enemies List". Now Moonriddengirl is part of the plot against FAC. Also add CU Amalthea!

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Mon 6th February 2012, 6:28pm

[Mister Die]

Today's featured article
"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot episode of the animated television series South Park.

No comment.

[EricBarbour]

So, has any of you geniuses figured out (or stumbled into) SG's real identity or not?

[SB_Johnny]

Today's featured article
"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot episode of the animated television series South Park.

No comment.

[lilburne]

Today's featured article
"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot episode of the animated television series South Park.

No comment.

"Respect my Authoritah" and "Screw you guys I'm going home" sort of sums up the entire community.

[radek]

Today's featured article
"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot episode of the animated television series South Park.

No comment.

"Respect my Authoritah" and "Screw you guys I'm going home" sort of sums up the entire community.

As I said before, there are several editors who I *always* read in "Cartmen voice" in my head when I have to deal with their comments. It just makes so much more sense out of the whole "project".

[thekohser]

Where did Raul654 threaten someone for daring to suggest that he be replaced as FAC pooh-bah? I need a link.

Edit: Wait, I think I got it.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 7th February 2012, 9:12pm