User talk:TCO: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 5 December 2011

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 9 sections are present.

If you are watchlisting TCO, then please post your name in this thread...

Toolserver says I have 42 [82, now] stalkers. But I don't know their names and the Wikiprivacyblabla won't let me know.

So if you are watching me, please report in and name yourself. I promise not to hassle you even if you are a "Wikienemy". It is all cool, serious. I won't be mean. Umm...and yeah...nothing to make you give your name...but come on. Be a fella! TCO (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of TCO talkpage watchers:

TCO (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually getting self-annoyed at this making it harder to find "Fluorine" changes. Feel like taking my own page off of my watchlist.TCO (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not one of the 42, but I thought it might be fun to sign anyways. Note that, I have unchecked the "watch this page" checkbox below, so I really am not one of your 42. Have fun! --Jayron32 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sound of tree falling in forest...TCO (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was "I dunno why the hell this talk page is on my watchlist..." Then it hit me. But didn't stick, because it was like teflon.S B H arris 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We will rock F FA in mid-August. Want to do In as well, but have traction for F. R8r is up for an August return.TCO (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, could you please explain why your page is on my watchlist? Will Beback talk 05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I promise not to hassle you even. I promise not to hassle you even. ;) TCO (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know why it's on my watchlist: I left you a message within the past 2 weeks - which is about how often I go through and clear out my watchlist, otherwise I'd have roughly a gazillion pages on the list. So...by the time you get to 42 names, chances are I'll no longer be one of the 42. And it's talk page watchers, not stalkers... ;-) Risker (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I purge stuff too. Wish there was a quick click within the watchlist to just get rid of it (have to click over to the page and unwatch). Need to make Wiki more ergonomic. We're in the 90s...I mean the 2010s.TCO (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added you; to keep the faith in your ingenious method. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Glad I could bring a new gag forward.TCO (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlisted you after writing a message, and forgot to un-watch you after you replied. I'm un-watching you now. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 11:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But...but...you are messing up the count. *Splutter* Go back to your dash-loverz then!TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlisted you when you started, as your informal mentor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. That's right, I did ask for one. TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I should point out that I routinely de-watchlist pages that get too busy. —W F C— 12:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. And now you all are seeing replies to each other. "too meta." I'll actually dewatch list stuff even if not that busy, just if I'm not waiting on an answer or involved in some chitchat. Like I can go over and sta...look at Wehwalt/Mahleus/Sandy periodically without bothering to watchlist it. Actually if there is an option to only watchlist article pages editted, not talk or project, I would prefer that. (I still want to keep conversations at one place, but can manually check back.)TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, I stalk infrequently but not got the page watched, so I guess you have 43 stalkers now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess only temporarily, then. Fair enough. I usually snoop yours manually as well.TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not technically watchlisted either, but I do find this a somewhat enjoyable page to peruse every now and then. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlisted this page last night when you came into the IRC help channel. I saw your thread on the help desk, and also on my watchlist, so I thought I might as well confess to watching this page. Oh, this will probably give you a fairly accurate list of watchers if you discount bots and annons. Well, now that my confession is out of the way... -->Unwatch<--- *Click* Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero | My Talk 03:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Off and on.~~ Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. TCO (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of your watchers ... you came to my attention on MF's page when you were asking for help [1] and, after a little research, I found out that you may well be an Asimov fan and so did not delete you from my watchlist - though in fairness I think I had 4,400+ on there at the last count so its probably time for a big dump. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. I prune my watchlist pretty regularly. User pages, if I'm not involved with the conversation, get cut even if a buddy of mine. Places like MOS-T and the like, same. TCO (reviews needed) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. You got added to my watchlist when I posted on your talk page (somewhere below) in response to your post on my talk page. IMO, there's not much percentage in worrying about who is watchlisting you. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you friend me please, Oak Ridge Lady? See top of my userpage. TCO (reviews needed) 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I hope this won't lead to your asking me for a recommendation on LinkedIn! --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. TCO (reviews needed) 03:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
;)--intelati^talk 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rehabilitating me.TCO (reviews needed) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added something to your talk page and I will watch your talk page from now on ■ MMXX ^talk 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good man. Remember me after I'm repermabanned. TCO (reviews needed) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repermabanned??! what do you meam?! ■ MMXX ^talk 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Have said good things about you behind your back.TCO (reviews needed) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sensible people say bad things about me behind my back. I appreciate your positive notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the 20th user to give you a watchlist signature. I hope you're doing well. Hey Mid (contribs) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, man. Okey-doke!TCO (reviews needed) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just checked my watchlist and I do seem to be one of them too. — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Well experiment has about run it's course. Thread should archive in a few days. TCO (reviews needed) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Seems like you caught half of the stalkers, anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Started today. All the main thoughts in your manifest are also mine. --Ettrig (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good luck with Quoll and all.TCO (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the Quoll, it was the "Jimmy Butler shit". Tried to pull them into more general subjects. In vain. Opposed by Malleus. --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You now have 81 pagewatchers so your ratio of declared stalkers is down to 30%. Your point about FAs on peculiar topics is hard to argue with, but I still think the wife-selling article is great. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Was really expecting this thing to archive. It's a cute article. Mallman would not let me add a See also for Garage sale or digging around in the sofa cushions to find coins to pay for the delivery pizza. ;) TCO (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Appreciated your feedback.TCO (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HurricaneFan 25 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are men! I was expecting you all to scream the loudest (and still OK if you disagree). But truly appreciated your willingness to at least think about it. And not doing some Nancy-girl, "I'm insulted" stuff. Ever read either of those stories I referenced? Typhoon by Conrad is really gripping and captures the amazing imperfections and at the same time courage of men who go to sea and fight the elements when they turn nasty.TCO (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember when I watchlisted you...maybe when you were working on Painted turtle...or from a conversation on Bishonen's talk or maybe Bishzilla's talk. I seem to remember that you were trying to get yourself blocked to put you out of your misery. Good thing that failed. 8^D.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you, bad for me. TCO (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, am I English?

Does it matter?

00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fluorosis

Answer here

00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Improving Wikipedia's important articles

Thank you for this report. Unfortunately, I must criticize it for failing to address the fundamental problem at hand, namely the complete and total failure of administrators to adequately patrol and watch our vital articles. The reason good and featured article writers focus on obscure content is because vital articles are, for the most part, watched and edited by users who do not share the goals of article improvement, and who make collaboration difficult, if not impossible. As a result, editors wishing to actually write and improve articles must move on to unwatched and undiscovered topics. This has been known for many years now, so I was quite surprised to see you ignore the problem in your report. When I first arrived here in 2004, I was told by regulars and admins alike that they had completely given up on working on many of our vital articles, and they spent their time on quiet articles in order to get work done. Otherwise, they would be bogged down into unproductive talk discussions by editors who didn't care about the article improvement process. It is my opinion that editors have all but abandoned and fled the vital articles because administrators have failed to patrol and control the problem of uncollaborative and disruptive editors who are here only to argue and not to research, write, and improve the encyclopedia. In fact, most administrators will admit that they avoid content disputes and controversial topics, which only makes the problem worse and leads to more editors leaving those topics behind. If you want to improve vital articles, you will need to address the inability of administrators to deal with highly watched and important articles that attract editors who have no interest in improving the topic. Otherwise, editors will continue to work on quiet and obscure pages until administrators actually start doing their job. Since that isn't going to happen, an effort needs to be made to delegate administrative powers to WikiProjects so that people involved in the daily maintenance of related articles can exert administrative oversight for the sole purpose of enabling and empowering editors to improve the articles. When you think about this, it makes the most sense, because it is the most active project users who will be able to improve the vital articles and setup collaboration with associated projects. For example, we might have a lead coordinator on the films project who is not an administrator but might need administrative tools to help out the active editors. To do this, administrative rights would be given to that lead coordinator for permission on all film-related articles. Delegating rights and permissions by topic would allow users who work in vital areas to speed the article development and improvement process along. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it before, but you state it exceptionally well. Perhaps a revitalized VA project could benefit from a couple admins sort of how FA has admins (mostly). I do think that even in an adverse editing environment that enhanced social rewards (they are equal now) would help for more important topics. Also, that the star (even the plus sign) does help give a tiny bit of moral authority in reverting bad edits. But yeah...I agree. There is more than one lever to push. Probably pushing any of them would help. Improvement should be the objective.TCO (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the more I think about it, the more I like this. We will have some abuse, sure. But the problem of degredation and warring is probably much worse. We need to be efficient and pick the lesser evil. Intuitively, I think gatekeepers makes sense (or higher protections). Done correctly it can eliminate stress both for article writers (some dissuaded from startin now) as well as newbies who are given a false message that they can improve horse...and then they go do something non-vandalistic but destructive (adding an external link to a hobby site, putting some info in the lead that is already in the body, etc.)...and then get reverted. It is a big hurdle for the community though. If there was a way to do it gradually...hmmm...TCO (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. This analysis is very close to SandyGeorgia's also. If I had read this first, then I would have shortened my note above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I think you will find is considerable opposition to handing out bits without a community vote. Go on, post at WT:RFA and see what happens. Such a side issue could provide another huge distraction. Think about it. The only time I remember handing out bits to non-admins getting more than minimal support is if they were elected to ArbCom, which has not yet happened, though non-arbs have run. Giano ran two years ago, I believe, although I do not follow Wiki Politics as closely as I should for my own self-protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I can't speak for others, but what I'm saying is that for the moment, we keep the universal admin permissions process but that we experiment with a streamlined, topic-area, article level rights catered to lead coordinators on WikiProjects or similar users. Part of the problem here is that the site focuses on giving users rights based on the older sysop approach to maintenance when what we really need is a topic based approach. There are hundreds of editors who stay away from vital articles because those pages are infested with trolls and POV pushers who have expressly said that the reason they disrupt Wikipedia is because they see this place as an amateur site and they feel that "anything goes". The lack of professionalism, leadership, and most of all vision, contribute to this perspective. Since admins won't do their jobs in order to benefit contributors, and act much like police officers who are mostly forbidden from preventing crime, and won't do anything until after a crime occurs, then we need to delegate this responsibility to people who will do something, and who will protect the content contributors more than the trolls and vandals. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to sound dismissive, but I'd like to see a fuller write-up. Is there one someplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Should I send you an fMRI? :) Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: the only write-up I know of is in my head. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'll send a zombie over for it then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

I think you did a really good piece of work and have many good thoughts and arguments. I think the basic argument is flawed though: wikipedia is not a for profit corporation and its readers are not its patrons or customers, therefore there is no reason that the article's readers want should be the best ones. On the contrary the argument, by using this untenable logics of the for profit corporation, it misses the fact that editors are volunteers and volunteers work best when they do what they are passionate about. If they are passionate about something that few readers are interested in then so be it - because the the effort can not just be diverted to another area with the same result. It also fails to recognize the argument that perhaps the most important thing for wikipedia to have article's about are those things that readers cannot find elsewhere. I have for example written FAs and GAs about obscure indigenous languages - I have done this for two reasons: 1. because I am passionate and knowledgeable about those languages and not others, and 2. because I know that there are no other place on the internet where readers can find this information accessible. In my view this is much more important for a good encyclopedia than having articles on popular topics about which information abound all over the internet. This means that it is not an alternative for me to write about "Spanish language" or "Mandarin language" even though they may get more hits - I have neither the expertise nor the passion necessary for doing so. And furthermore it would be largely irrelevant since readers can find that information any number of other places on the internet. Not so with Otomi language or Nahuatl, Mayan languages. Now I do agree very much with your other point - namely that FAC needs a restructureing to make it more attractive to content contributors. I have stopped nominating articles because it is more hostile and less satisfactory than going through actual academic peer review - which at the same time serves to advance my professional career. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion piece in which "the basic argument is flawed" cannot possibly be a "really good piece of work", at least not beyond elementary school level, where "nice use of crayons; good effort" might be appropriate encouragement and positive feedback.

Any analysis which treats Wikipedia's readers as customers - or its unpaid editors as a labor force whose efforts need to be managed and optimized - is fundamentally flawed. It also undermines the principles that led to Wikipedia's success in the first place. There is no distinction between editors and readers: we encourage everyone to share the information and knowledge that they possess or have access to as part of a vision to make the sum of human knowledge available to all. Readers can, do, and are encouraged to fix problems in the articles they read. It is fantastic that Wikipedia has articles on obscure topics that are poorly documented elsewhere. That makes WP a unique and enormously valuable resource, and one that is helping to prevent human knowledge being lost forever. This is at least as "vital" as improving so-called "vital" articles, about which information is far more widely available.

There is a current fashion for finding "problems" with the wiki-model, and seeking to "improve" the demographics of editors or the distribution of their contributions. In the absence of a cash benefit for each edit, such ideas are whistling in the wind, and are perhaps even indicative of Wikipedia's success: is navel-gazing supplanting improving content because it is easier to do, and we have too much time on our hands? Geometry guy 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GG, all of that is good in theory, but in practice there are, for the most part editors and readers. Some of our articles receive tens of thousands of hits a day, and not a single edit. Yes, in theory, we encourage the general public. In practice, those seeking to become editors must undergo a steep learning curve on "how to edit without being blocked or otherwise discouraged". I think one of the things TCO is saying is that the price of entry is too high. That is not unique to TCO. I think it is incumbent on us as well, the regulars, to disregard the shock of being actually looked at by name—something done only very formally here, such as WP:WBFAN. Let us get past it and sift for what we can do to improve the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the principles of human resource management apply to non-profit and for profit organizations: it is not a flaw. we need coaching management, not command or laissez faire. see also Leadership; Leadership Styles. we can learn from for profit organizations, without being for profit. in the OODA loop, orient is underrated. as for the "anyone can edit", haven't you seen them raising the drawbridge? if it were done with coaching it wouldn't be bad, but alas it is autoconfirmed status. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a non-profit organization: it is a freely licensed open encyclopedia project, whose content is available on numerous sites across the internet. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, which seeks donations, hosts servers where Wikipedia content is edited, and has paid employees. These employees profit in their salaries, sometimes from time spent thinking about how best to make use of the volunteer resource that the Wikipedia vision inspires. Given that Wikipedia is edited significantly by children, confusing Wikipedia (the project) with WMF (the company, be it non-profit or not) is an approach that is not only fundamentally flawed, but borders on being morally offensive, a 21st century analogue of the abuse of child labor in previous centuries. This is amplified by the way that the praise economy encourages the young in particular to engage in Wikipedia as an MMORPG: modifications to incentive schemes essentially (i.e., disproportionately) involve manipulating children.

Now this may sound as if I object to leadership and pragmatism. I don't, but leadership must be based on principles, and pragmatism must be based on honesty and realism. I entirely agree that the way to encourage article improvement is to lower the barrier for entry. However, TCO's contribution completely misses the point by spending almost its entire time discussing "the top" in general, and FA in particular. Asking for editors to convert so-called "vital articles" (such as Jesus and China) into "Wikipedia's very best work" is palpably a nonsense approach that does nothing to lower the barrier to entry. Getting past the first edit war on such articles without losing enthusiasm would already be pretty impressive.

It was completely obvious to me when I first started contributing in 2007 that FA was not the way to encourage content improvement on a large scale, which is why I and many others spent so much time retooling GA to be fit for the task. However, in doing this, GA (like FA) has never sought to tell volunteers which articles to work on: it has only enabled and encouraged them to improve the content of any article that interests them to an acceptable level and at a relatively low cost to them and to the community. That's utterly pragmatic and is proving to be rather successful. Geometry guy 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this is not a non-profit organization. It is possible that we have something to learn about organization from for-profit and non-profit organizations - but not if that something is based on a false understanding of the aims of wikipedia to be providing a service or product to a group of clients. Apriori I don't see any compelling argument that business leadership can be profitably transfered to non-business flat-structured encyclopedia projects - you would have to convince me that it would, not just take ot for granted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the real issue here the failure to tailor and grow the crowdsourcing model to meet the needs of the site? We're still stuck in the same development model. When you look at the list of crowdsourcing projects, I'm seeing a lot of strategies that could help us address the vital article problem and meet it head on and still remain relevant. This is a problem of leadership and vision. It's not a big secret that engineers as a profession simply lack the vision necessary to grow the site, and that's fine, they have their essential role to play. The bottom line is, to remain current and address the needs of our users we need to take risks. No offense to anyone, but most of the people in any type of power positions here are totally risk averse, and that's a brain drain in many respects. I can think of a dozen different ways to increase vital article participation, but I'm not about to discuss it for 12 months with a bunch of naysayers who think like engineers. We need a fast track for new ideas, and a way to test them live on the site, a crowdsourced "Skunk Works" for solving endemic problems like vital article improvement. Instead of writing countless reports and designing numerous power point presentations, I would like to see people experimenting with ideas and testing them out. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Go for it, man. I gave some practical steps in my presentation. One single individual could take the moribund 2009 Project structure and make it look like a real project. All the animal projects look more attractive than that thing. Get a better symbol, nicer userbox candy, prominent signup list (top of page). You can do a pretty easy workaround to make the whole thing more connected to the list itself (just add another little rectangle, like we have for level 1/2/3/4, for project administration (so the list and the project are more linked). You can do the whole thing, with no money, no consensus, no Wikiblabla. Just do it.TCO (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, i was gonna say any good idea already has a project that burned out, or MfD'd. people will go where the leadership is. people avoid the drama, the key is to sustain interest. however, the problems are so big we need a junk shot: broaden the base in obscure things, improve stubs, add sources, and improve vital. and i agree this project is too important to be left to the engineers and cs majors. this project is a human capital, intellectual property leadership exercise, and being distributed can route around any obstruction. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa

No offense taken. This was obviously my mistake. To repeat from elsewhere: I'm a supporter. --Ettrig (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of things

re: File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf; did you really mean to upload a single page over the prior 105 page document?

The full doc makes for interesting reading, as did Gardner's talk you linked to (viewing;). To my mind, the fact that specific editors elect to work on less than highly viewed pages is not an issue. They're free to edit what they like, and some of these articles are very interesting and much appreciated. The issue of non-focus on 'vital' articles (or 'important' ones, the wp:va list may-well have a lot of subjective topics listed) is one that is at a level above individual editor focus. Are there structural, institutional and bureaucratic biases that lead editors away from the vital/important topics? Seems there's a lot of talk and concern about it, not just yours. This would boil down to a failure of leadership.

You touch on, but do not go into great depth about, the issue of control of the FA-process. Such things are power-nexuses and this one has endured from the early days of the project without much new blood or reform. Please push the election question to the fore; when are the FA-elections? How many stars required for suffrage? Alarbus (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be any requirement for suffrage beyond the requirements to vote in ArbCom elections?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would let anyone who considers themselves an FA participant to vote. Right now, people are used to the current model, but I bet after a couple years, and provided the periodic elections were done in FA space, that it would be like GOCE and MilHist elections with people self-selecting. From a practical standpoint, you're going to get writers and then a few people that review/cover FA like Tony1 and Sven. It's way more feared than it should be. And a little discussion from people or an occasional person who wants to do something different would be good for the place. So the week of an election would be a good time for thinking about the strategic direction. (Now it is all on autopilot and operations mode.)TCO (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF used the phrase "FA stakeholder", which is why I was concerned about suffrage; I believe it should be open to all. The leadership would obviously fall to someone well-respected in the FA area. FA isn't exactly a WikiProject, it's a process, or as the doc said, a fiefdom. And it's rather closed, which is inappropriate for an open project. Some new blood and new ideas are sorely needed. Gardner's UK vid also made reference to change at the rate of consensus being too slow, made an appeal to help achieve consensus, and posed the possibility of lowering the 'standard' of consensus on change. She was speaking of a visual editor, but also to all resistance to change. In too many ways, core issues are stuck in the past. Alarbus (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are on the same page. This is not that hard and after the initial shock of change, people would get used to it. The people who came to vote would be the people who cared to, just like anywhere else. I don't see any voting restrictions needed. (It will just work out that the people who care will come.)TCO (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. I'm not sure where the Signpost is at; isn't it past-due? All the bickering seems to be about taking a chainsaw to the whole idea (and a few users). If it doesn't make the current issue, then the head of steam builds for next week. Djinn don't go back in bottles easily. Alarbus (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

donno, man. That page is off my watchlist. I just got head down, butt up and submitted what they asked me to. Haven't been a prima donna when the editor cut some of my text. Dat's cool. I think a lot of people want to pre-debate the work itself. Or just have some power structure move to prevent a discussion at all. Not how I roll. First thing I said, was to make sure that opponents get equal billing. (Saying that knowing 90% scream for my head.) I think I am kind of unWiki though. Feel at home in the real world and in more of the normal Internet, and all. No biggie. I got a rollerblade in, a legs lift, and reraked the remnant leaves as well. And responded to a work inquiry. I'm going to actually mess with an article and then play some Pogo online bridge and then take a hot bath so I can sleep, since I napped in the afternoon. (you wanted to know that, right? ;-))TCO (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nothing like a nice afternoon 'nap'.

Some want my head, too. As I said, it's a power-nexus (except you said it, too (fiefdom)). I've not gone looking for the latest. Hard to find 'it' sometimes, as it moves. I'm going to mostly focus on fixing more templates (hlist, in last week's Signpost. Alarbus (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mind-control on your DYK review

Demiurge1000---despite letting slide his buddy's DYKk hook that blamed high pork prices on BLTs---worried anew about C. A. Patrides.

Surprisingly, he was ignored. I'm having a deja vu all over again.

Has that happened before? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out. cmdranaomiebot will put accent marks on the deja. Had to spank the mechanical monkey already over at State reptile. Let me go troll IRC and see if demi is there. I actually get along with him, but will go be mean to him just for you big guy. ;-) TCO (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The serious issue is that he has made this DYK a very unpleasant experience for a new DYK contributor. It would have just better to give a heads up, and let us fix it, as part of Sandy's vision of DYK as a school for good editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the new user aspect one of the most touching aspects of DYK. Still remember how happy I was for my first. And Motennen (18 yo) for his first.

Gotcha crap from you, Sandy, or Demi makes me want to give forearm shivers. Still remember how happy Motenen was when he got his DYK. All the angst about the main page is bullshit. We have all kinds of links going to all kinds of articles (not just the bolded ones) on front page all the time (including in the TFA). And then we have all kinds of incomplete articles on Wiki all the time, with all kinds of issues. The whole thing is a control game. Like the squabble with Featured Lists. Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack. Admins crying about prying the dead mops from hands. Arbs spending 4 years plus in their silly little jobs. teen aged OTRS and CUs. Sandy with her little declining kingdom she is desperate to rule for life.TCO (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be going in a good direction.

I was very happy when a champion of the University of Iowa gave me my first DYK for Robert V. Hogg. He was as gentle as Bunk was with McNulty:

Off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: It's 'cause when it came time for you to fuck me . . . you were very gentle.

Det. William 'Bunk' Moreland: You damn right.

Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: See, 'cause you could have hauled me out of the garage and just bent me over the hood of a radio car, and . . . no, you were, you were very gentle.

Det. William 'Bunk' Moreland: I knew it was your first time. I wanted to make that shit special.

Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: It was, man. It fucking was.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Do not use f words here (speak them loud to vent and type something polite :-) - you'll get (extra) enemies, and they'll use it against you. Some admins (Jimbo included) block just for incivility no matter the arguments. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do it because you are a prince of a man, true gentleman. Not because I'm worried about extra enemies or people "using something against me". F...screw them.

TCO (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far from gentle, but practical - there is no use wasting time and nerves in fights and blocks, too much work to do, for a handful of capable editors. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher importance weight in TFA

Imprtance of subject has a weight in the prioritization for TFA. This weight should be increased considerably. What is the process to change those values? --Ettrig (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on WT:TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment on it before. In a thread at TFA. (Of course, maybe the donkey will pay more attention after it's had a 2X4 to its head for attention. hmmm. although...the figurehead ruler there seems like he is on sabattical...actually good for him...at the end of the day...I'm sure he is smart and hope he manages his personal life to advantage...not just Wiki stuff.)

Current incentive is timid. Butt-timid. Pales compared to crufty factors. It's about like the Wikicup incentive that I panned. Night and day from page view importance weighting. We routinely put incredibly obscure topics on display at TFA, just completing the circle of incenting and rewarding people for trivia production. It actually makes us look bad to outsiders (I still am one at heart...feel a love for the reader, more than the writer). Makes us look like we are concentrating on trivia. Although I guess that is honest! ha! but could we not put on a better face?

TFA is strange how they run old, degraded articles vice the new ones also. Seems way MORE about a reward for the star person than displaying our best wares.

And then the HUGE overpowering emphasis on date-based connections is just...crufty.

TCO (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again

As per your comment on Skomororkh's page. There was no "gottcha moment". You cited Gorbatai in you report, which I hadn't finished reading until Saturday night. I was curious about her research and couldn't find anywhere a link to the Wikisym paper so I downloaded (freely available) one of her papers from her website on Sunday night. I thought that Skomorokh should know before he published, that there appeared to be alignment between your report and her work. I had no idea when he intended to publish and hadn't read very far in her work at that point or even started to parse what she was saying. I do have this to say - her methodology appears to be good, and her research is interesting. Hard to parse though. No need to respond - just don't want to see "gottcha moment" become a meme. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your buddy called me a liar. My slide has a bullet saying that the bulk of my work was independent. I can prove it with my computer if you want. I ran that stats.grok.se before seeing any of her stuff. When I saw the published Wikisym paper, I loved it of course! and the stuff that is from her is cited from her. Which is ONE slide from one paper. And then the one unpublished analysis on that other slide. Heck, if you want to say where I "got the idea", you can blame Louie496 or even Jonbod or even just this is something I've said in talk pages before...but decided to do some amateur hack analysis on by hitting stats.grok.se and just take it a little further than talk page blathering. I wanted to see what I could do with no fancy server data or super-powered STATA computer programs. It's similar, because it's obvious what is going on and because great minds think alike. But honest, I had almost wrapped my work, before I saw hers. Some of the cases came later, but the 4 box and the like was before...and every analysis I did, comment I made was my idea. I ran that thing. Heck I feel bad she's even associated with such a controversial guy. But beleive me...I'm capable of coming up with shit like that on my own. And I still haven't seen the 70 page paper. Tried following the link you gave but it did not work or I hit a paywall or something. So, if I came up with stuff she had before, oh well. I wasted my time then. But I wasn't trying to pass her work off as mine. You couldn't get me to lie on this with a .45 to my (part of body). I'm a truthkeeper too. And that means more to me, than some online website.TCO (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I do think it's cool that you read her stuff and have positive things to say about it. Although before you said you didn't think it was good. So maybe we should bake in a TK reads up on Gorbatai (who she mistakenly thinks is behind my presentation when she isn't) and gets up to speed for every story going out of the paper.TCO (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...and as far as "not knowing when it was going out", you put up a thread saying for him not to publish...and it was pretty obvious that the thing was slated for Monday's Signpost and was in preproduction by the page location and I said I was working under a deadline, the weekend before. So I call bullshit on that, 'keeper. TCO (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, TCO. TK's not the enemy, and she was understandably upset that your report was used to attack her (and yes, I know that wasn't your intent). I get that you might be upset about some of the commentary stemming from your report, but you blowing up will not help. Soi calme.

. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Nikki. I'm not pissed any more. It wasn't the other stuff being diverted to TK, honest. I can take that, really (maybe even should take it). Honest. This was...this. But, yeah, TK is good peeps and I'm calmed. BTW, excellent use of a smiley. TCO (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now quit whining and come choose the best list of core/vital/essential articles - see User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Alright_then.... I got an idea about a 3-week flash mob type exercise where a small panel of judges votes on the best improvement to a hefty article and gives some amazon vouchers or something...may be funded by this all talk page lurkers invited. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, aye.TCO (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~===Segue to grant for collab===~~

0. Think it is excellent to be using these grants for content related work. It is not disallowed. And need to start popping ch...I mean breaking barriars. Just habit has made them for train fare and beer at meetups. But doing some small motivational thing like this that is tied to content is a great idea.

1. Not sure exactly what you have in mind (so feel free to fill in). Maybe easier to get approval for the books as a grant as required for the article, than as "rewards". Just thinking easier to justify (or we can try pure reward, go for broke, and then have that as a fall back option). Would still be a small reward (keeping the books). And it is not about the $$. If we think of the time donated, for someone good at content and cranking, it is probably $100/hour donation coming in free. A few books or something is chump change and just good for morale.

~~2. OK. Let's do a blitz. At least there will be energy from the hard and fast goal. (not my style on my own, but for a group project, good.)~~

3. I think if it is a group thing, then a topic susceptible to subdivision is best. Not a biography or a work of literature (I think, am not adamant). My quick thinking would be something like a major country.

4. I would prioritize something with low text written, high views, VA 1000 (doesn't need to be 10 or 1000). Let me go look at that list. Good thing is that it is barely scannable. The 10,000 is like dipping into the Mandelbrot, I know.

~~TCO (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~P.s. How's Science? (serious question) -TCO~~

OK...sorry...I went and read your plan. OK, a contest sounds fun. Didn't grok the concept at first. How can I help? Support your idea? Write an article?TCO (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit comments

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Richard Nixon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't template the regulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulars should know better. And of course, to quote you, that's only an essay. WP:Template the regulars is another. Yworo (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of valid maintenance templates

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Nixon, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a perfectly valid reason for removing maintenance tags. Look, you are hitting a brick wall here. You made a good faith argument. It didn't succeed. Just accept it and move on to the next one.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a review by people knowledgeable about the image use policy and may also start an RfC. A small clique of editors can't override the spirit and intent of Wikipedia-wide policy. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article is using IAR effectively for the betterment of the article. It looks nice and it passed the hardest microscope on the project where tiny pieces of policy are important in August of this year. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edit to My Talk Page

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Interchangeable. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Inter change able|talk to me 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: making excellent contributions to the Encyclopedia, yet taking time off from that to vandalize my userpages. Please leave me alone. I am not your mini-me. Go back to being constructive. Inter change able|talk to me 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh page commens

What part of coming to Skomorokh's page and posting the comments you made seems like anything but a terrible idea? Unless it is your intention to cause a massive amount of drama, showing up when people are venting anger at you and poking fun at them serves absolutely no purpose. In the interests of not having Skomorokh's page turn any more into a warzone than it already is, I suggest you leave that page immediately and wait for Skomorokh to contact you here. I have collapsed your comments there in the mean time. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, I will not pass on the appropriateness of TCO's comments, but given this, in which you oppose TCO's work, you should not be either. If you are a partisan, you should not be passing on the appropriateness of other people's comments because you are involved. Report it, fine. Ask for a neutral admin to look at it, fine. But it isn't your call. I suggest you would be wise to self-revert. Let us all keep our cool over this, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I oppose TCO's work, but I was more concerned with the fact that Sko's page had descended into chaos. I appreciate that you believe that I, as someone involved, shouldn't be doing this, however. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the intent, Sven, but there is no need for this. Let's do as Wehwalt recommends and all take five to collect ourselves. We have an issue to get written, and Monday is fast approaching. Skomorokh 12:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, Skom. At this point, I suspect that nothing we say is affecting what Skom will do. Let's all go for a drink at the sandbox. Sven? You coming?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read Sko's page. (Don't have it on watch.) No clue on "destruction". I would prefer if you stayed off my page, Sven (and no don't type a rebuttal).TCO (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AP Biology 2011

Hope you like this, of note is the latest edits option at the bottom. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very impressive and the latest edits is very helpful. Kudos, old bean!TCO (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

(Re. Q on ANI) you might like to know that the 'Prefixindex' thing can be transcluded, e.g. {{Special:Prefixindex/User:TCO/}} - as shown here...

Subpages for this user

Subpages for this user:

Chzz ► 15:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I just stole it!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome.

Putting on my front page.TCO (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Now Wehwalt can't say I'm useless. Well...except it was Chzz who really did the work. -TCO

P.s.s. I actually used ANI for good rather than evil. Yeah, me! :) -TCO

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For leaving the dark side for good. Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wehwalt. Although that will be really hard to live up to. TCO (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. :) --Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility

TCO, I find that JSTOR access is available to members of the Virginia Historical Society at an additional cost. The total cost would be about $100 per person/year. I wonder if this is worth selling to the Foundation under camel/nose/door kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might help you personally, ad hoc. (So go for it. It is progress at least. Philippe has gotta have enough pull to get THAT approved, at least.) That said, I think what we talked about by mail is pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things (coupla cross-ocean flights, plus hotelt and time are more). So...I hope they get that done. Won't say more as it will break my promise not to agitate. Let's give the peeps there time to work the system and take some initiative.TCO (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, above was negative. Please go get it done. That sounds like the scope of what Philippe could get done. Let's get something to open the door. Fill out whatever paperwork they want. This is not about your budget, but about moving forward.TCO (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will. I am busy working on Cross of Gold speech so can't concentrate on that right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit crazy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Jets beat my Skins. TCO (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First time in 20 years, I was there the last time. 3-0, as I recall.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Russia with love

Hey. Busy at the moment (here), I'll contact you a little later, OK? I don't just have enough time to work in two directions in Wiki. BTW, you can be useful here, if you want to. Directly after I'm done there, I'll switch back to fluorine, but now I need a rest from it. My eyes are already too tired (I know I said it before), so a rest will help.

P.S. I have read your paper (and also watch your page, so am aware of comments). Generally have nothing to add. I'm afraid of that it won't cause any seen consequences in the article space (besides the talks, do essays ever?). Hope, however, to be wrong, as this one is good. Real good, whatever whoever says --R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will change unless there are systematic changes to incentives. Awards (can just be stickers) for important articles. I know how to get this done but am a little tired of pushing things.

I think a lot of the vitriol on the report has been because at the end of the day...people know I'm right on star collecting. And then Sandy does not want to stand for election and the Raul thing...well...I just have no clue...that whole thing is strange with him absent, Sandy leading but not named, etc. But that's a confounding issue (FAC fiefdom, cronies/regulars) versus the star system and Wiki misallocation of effort.

I have been underwhelmed with the response from the "other side". Looking at the wrong academic references and getting spanked for it by the author (and perhaps they are still confused?) Lot of just empty chat. Would have expected them at least to bitch about sample sizes and medians and lack of t-test and the like. (It won't change the story to have more data and do some super stats...I've cut this too many ways, I can feel it and it's good business level analysis...but that is what I would expect them to throw out for chaff.)

I'll see what I can do. Am a little "meh" on contributing to Wiki right now. If I can scrub fluorine for you would probably help it. Don't just keep throwing it at FAC without a better go-over before hand. I still think it needs to be scrubbed for a ref/factcheck. It is probably 99% right...I just worry that I found a couple refs wrong before (and it has a long history before you saw the article, may be a couple more hidden land mines). I had planned to do this myself, instead of bugging you...since it is my hangup anyway. That and it needs the English gone over again (mostly in the section where you added text). I think after that, it is good to go. I mean we should scrub the ref format, but that is intellectually easy, just tedious.

Thanks for the note. You are a good guy and I hope all goes well for you. Don't let my squabbles bring you down!

TCO (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TCO. Just a note here from one of your undeclared talk page watchers! I wanted to let you know that as a direct consequence of seeing your presentation, I am changing my focus to Vital articles, and I am working to bring Adolf Hitler up to GA. This article is listed as Vital, and is currently #85 in page views, so it's a double whammy. There are others on the list that are both on the top 1000 Vital list and the top 1000 in page views. Nazi Germany is another example, and I might work on it next, or Papa Joe. It's a great way to embiggen the wiki. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will have huge impact, Di. Good job. It really is an efficient use of your time to work on the blockbusters. I just wish we better recognized that type of service. Adolph sounds tricky because of the sheer monstrousness, but at the same time fascination and the need to be dispassionate. Let me know if you need a review or any help. Wehwalt might be good to tap (he FAed Albert Speers). I think taking to GA is a very worthwhile objective and maybe the more efficient thing than FA. Good luck. You are really very brave to go after such a thing!TCO (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't....

... do this again after I've answered you initial question. Your edit changes the question and therefore changes my answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, aye.TCO (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wondered if US reptiles isn't vital enough for the main page.........? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a better list (in web traffic), run it instead. Def-fuh-nit-ly. I meanz it.

That said, it is kind of a cool topic (schoolchild attraction) and sorta "larticle-y" (I kinda enjoy doing new things here at Wiki...you all still have not figured out everything...there is room for creativity in formats).

Also, well...I figured squeeky wheel and all. Greedy cookie monster, here. That said, I could get you in trouble. That said, maybe controversy sells your program. (I'm babbling and confusing myself here).

(shift to substance) There is a little something that is noodling around in my head though...a point that WFC or Giants or one of those guys said... "don't misunderstand the audience". So...maybe you should not only try to be more lit'rary with topics like Bodlean (or even this one). But include some sports (and music, really really popular). I would just have the readers somewhere in your calculations. TFA has become way, way too editor forward. (I mean some of the old FAs they run...sheesh. [topic is great there, my point is the article was probably FARable.]) TFL because of your newness and need to prove yourselves and the huge imbalance of slots and backlog...you all do a better job of serving readers (who we really should care a lot about).

(stop substance) And peeps really like turtles. Even tough guys like Tony1 think they are cute. I'm just saying...sex sells...and um...turtles sell.

18:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Basics

The value of Wikipedia is generated when people download and consume the articles. One such download does not detract from the value of another one. Thus the value of downloads is additive, and because of this the value of an article is at least proportional to the number of page views it generates.

The value of the download is greater the more interesting the article is to the consumer. At the same time, each download is a vote, that this consumer considers this subject of interest. So the more downloaded articles can safely be assumed to be more interesting and more valuable per download. This means that the value of an article is more than proportional to the page views. And the range of pageviews is in itself enormous, from a few hundred in a month, to several millions.

Another indicator of importance of a subject is the ocurrence of interwiki links. Each such link shows that someone took the time write an article about it and someone made that link. This vote costs much more than a page view.

Because of this state of affairs it is extremely valuable if the good writers can be stimulated to choose subjects that the readers consider valuable. Many featured articles are read a few hundred times in a month. There is a large number of articles that are read a few hundred thousand times per month. The difference in value is more than a factor of one thousand. Wikipedia should strive to use what incentives it has to guide the editors towards the more valuable subjects. The system that evaluates and celebrates the highest quality articles has no such tendency at all. Most likely it has the opposite tendency. Defenders of the existing system and its criticisers agree that it is more difficult to achieve the highest quality for a valuable article.

I suggest that we at least set a limit for how invaluable a subject can be and still have a celebrated featured article. If we multiply the number of page views for an article over a year with the number of interwiki links in it, we get a value that rises with the value of the subject. We can sort the articles according to this value. I think that if an article shall be celebrated as featured, it should at least be about one of the 200 000 most valuable subjects. With this article sorting, we can generate a list of applicable articles. We don't even need the list. We can set the limit by a value for the product of page views and interwiki links. If an article has a product that is below that value, then it cannot be a featured article, because it cannot have a value that is worth celebrating.

--Ettrig (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Navigation related to WikiProject AP Biology 2011^talk
Lead editor is Jimmy Butler^talk
Group 1 topics	Royal Tern ^talk - Boletus bicolor ^talk - Lined seahorse ^talk - Bluespotted stingray ^talk -
Group 1 members	Captain kirkintosh (talk · contribs · count) Krustev LeMont (talk · contribs · count) Littlecass (talk · contribs · count) Stanfordbound_14 (talk · contribs · count)
Group 2 topics	Alabama cavefish ^talk - Angonoka tortoise ^talk - Smooth green snake ^talk - Sex-determination system ^talk - Quoll ^talk - De Vivo disease ^talk -
Group 2 members	darby0341 (talk · contribs · count) Phorofor (talk · contribs · count) Savetheoceans (talk · contribs · count) Schrödinger'sZombie (talk · contribs · count) WrdsofHope12 (talk · contribs · count)
Group 3 topics	Spot croaker ^talk - Greater Scaup ^talk - Hog Island sheep ^talk - Western mosquitofish ^talk -
Group 3 members	Der Elbenkoenig (talk · contribs · count) dmanrulz180 (talk · contribs · count) Haydenowensrulz (talk · contribs · count) patvac-chs (talk · contribs · count)
Group 4 topics	African manatee ^talk - Sand tiger shark ^talk - Olympic marmot ^talk - Spotted eagle ray ^talk -
Group 4 members	imthebombliketicktick (talk · contribs · count) marissa927 (talk · contribs · count) Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk · contribs · count) UND77 (talk · contribs · count)
Latest edits related to AP Biology 2011