User talk:TCO

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

Report in, by signing, please!

Toolserver says I have 42 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)

List of TCO talkpage watchers:

1. TCO (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   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)

2. 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)

   Sound of tree falling in forest...TCO (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

3. 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.SBHarris 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   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)

4. TCO, could you please explain why your page is on my watchlist?   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   I promise not to hassle you even. I promise not to hassle you even.  ;) TCO (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

5. 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)

   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)

6. Added you; to keep the faith in your ingenious method. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks man. Glad I could bring a new gag forward.TCO (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

7. 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)

   But...but...you are messing up the count. *Splutter* Go back to your dash-loverz then!TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

8. I watchlisted you when you started, as your informal mentor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Huh. That's right, I did ask for one. TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

9. Although I should point out that I routinely de-watchlist pages that get too busy. —WFC— 12:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   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)

10. 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)

    I guess only temporarily, then. Fair enough. I usually snoop yours manually as well.TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

11. 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)
12. 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)
13. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
14. Off and on.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
15. 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)

    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)

16. 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)

    Will you friend me please, Oak Ridge Lady? See top of my userpage. TCO (reviews needed) 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    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)

    Cute. TCO (reviews needed) 03:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

17. ;)--intelati^talk 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for rehabilitating me.TCO (reviews needed) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

18. 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)

    Good man. Remember me after I'm repermabanned. TCO (reviews needed) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    Repermabanned??! what do you meam?!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

19. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. Have said good things about you behind your back.TCO (reviews needed) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    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)

20. I'm the 20th user to give you a watchlist signature. I hope you're doing well. HeyMid (contribs) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks, man. Okey-doke!TCO (reviews needed) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

21. Yeah, just checked my watchlist and I do seem to be one of them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

    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)

    Great. Seems like you caught half of the stalkers, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

22. Started today. All the main thoughts in your manifest are also mine. --Ettrig (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you. Good luck with Quoll and all.TCO (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

23. 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)

    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)

24. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. Appreciated your feedback.TCO (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

25. HurricaneFan25 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

    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)

What do you mean, am I English?

Does it matter?

Fluorosis

Answer here

Comment

I wrote a book over at your TCO page and then deleted it. Well actually copied to text file. Might send it to you someday. Then I looked at the history of Ernest Hemingway and found this. Ripple effects you know.... Truthkeeper (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You can send me the message. I can take it, TK. Responded at your page and at Papa's page. RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your study and the Signpost

Hello, TCO; I am a managing editor of the Signpost and have been watching the fallout from your study with keen interest. I am very happy that you have expressed interest in the piece being covered in the Signpost, and would like to extend an invitation for you to make your case in our pages. What I have in mind is a statement by you summarising the study's main point, and anticipating/defending against criticisms, followed by a critical response by one or more of the FAC/GA people, and perhaps a final impartial piece exploring what questions the affair raises for the quality content community and the project at large. Skomorokh 16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. It's a little scarey, but makes sense. And is fair. Let me know when you need something. I'm not a great writer so appreciate any assistance from editors. Today is turkey day, so won't work on it.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I'm very glad you're willing to take this on (although of course if you don't feel comfortable, you could always get help from a sympathetic colleague). Do you think you could knock together 500 words or so by, say, Saturday? Skomorokh 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping. Skomorokh 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get started on it tonight. I had to rake the leaves yesterday and today at Mom's house. The other team can just write their criticism in parallel (the pdf is there). I heard the most important aspect of a journalist was meeting deadlines, so so much for landing a Signpost gig.TCO (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment on your report

There are several points in your report which need a little discussion. The point that the B-Class articles are of low quality and only a combinations of unrelated subsections. This is not the case for a lot of the articles. If you include all the B-Class into the category for articles good enough for the encyclopaedia. This would make a better picture for wikipedia and this would be also true.--Stone (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi TCO, I read your analysis with interest and entusuasim, having been sparked by the disucssion on talk:FAC you iniciated earlier in the month. I certainly get the gis of you argument, I think most do, but I think your thesis needs work yet. Youve prob noticed that, ah, you've alienated a lot of people, and made some new dubious admirers. The problem is that your method is incomplete, with very very narrow sample ranges, a tendany to leap to conclude correlation with out excluding or evening mentioning other influencing factors. The statical community is not impressed (wags finger!). And then you went and named and categorised people on such a small sample, and deeply offended a bunch of volunteers who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours (I dont know who long a thousand hours is) giving to the project and getting fuck all in return but abuse. Frankly your powerpoint presentation has thrown oil on fire and worsened the situation many many time; withness the EH debacle, Mattisse dancning with glee on WR, the forthcoming spiteful signpost article. See where this is going? You suggested the semi-prot of all FAs, but this is the kind of thing that could bring down the OWN exemption on FAs. You have no idea of the big boring SHIT people have to go through to keep these articles from depreciation from, well, you know, sometimes well intentioned and some times not...uncoolness. Well fine, grand, and here we are. My suggestion is listen to people re the methods you used to jump to the conclusions, strenghten your method, widen the sample, remove the specious and leaps of fancy, come out with an overall more crediable argument and get the people behind you. As I say, I support your intention, very much in fact. Oh and sorry I cant spell, have stopped even trying at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

TCO TLDR reply

Thanks man. Yeah, the Mattisse chortle is a shame, even just tactically for her. Same but opposite vector with Sandy losing her cool with the USEP conspiracy theory. Lot of people in this place seem to assume the enemy of my enemy is my friend and my two enemies must be friends. It's really different than other chat forums that I've been on, where you might fight and curse and all, but there are not these deep feuds and cliques. I'm fine with Moni calling me on the carpet though. Seems more in the eye.

The EH thing came out of nowhere. But was going on before, no? That's not 100% on me, is it? I'm actually OK if you need to give me a punch for TK. I know you are the tough guy and are tight with her and I think she is a gentle soul as well. Thought it was interesting when she said I made her think about some things and she was willing to talk to me even as an evil IP and discuss Steinbeck and all.

Yeah, sure it is a small sample, time-wise. Although I did freaking survey of 290+ FAS, written by 155 writers over 9 months. It is what it is. The areas that are sketchier (read the methadology) are some aspects of sampling (the FA thing is really a mini survey) distributions (like the 10,000 GAs!) and the use of medians. I did play with it a bit and think it is not bad and will not change much per story if you had some bot or the like and could crunch the whole thing.

I have a pretty good intuition on the limits of the individual tags (as you do). I could have larded down the writing with a bunch of wimpy caveats in there about small samples (e.g. someone who wrote now FAs in those months is not even in there...duh)! Don't you think everyone gets that intuitively and understands such results for an individual have this issue? [Actually you are right, I'll add a footnote (or a headnote) and a comment in methadology on this issue of the individuals. I really do think the inherent limitations...which parts are stronger/weaker should be easy for someone who works with data to grok, but maybe not. OK.

But I figured people would want to know where they came out. It's human nature. And I had the data. I was surprised where you came out and thought you might be angry, but happy that you have the savvy to understand the limits of the analysis. The other thing is those charts with the individuals do show what a leader board would look like that was not WP:BFAN or a Wikicup that was page view weighted. And the study and any decisions should come from consideration of group results, not individuals. I guess, I could cut those pages. Or cut the column with names. Hmm. I do think giving names kind of gives flavor also, so you lose some insight if it is all abstract.

From law of large numbers, group tendancies, etc. the implications for the broad distribution...are unlikely to be that much different with extending to full calender year or even two years. I mean, you see the basic forms of behavior and the distribution and the like. I'll Bayesian bet you that for the group, challenger to star collector effectiveness does not change as a story with more data. I mean it is 155 data points with 2 factor analysis. That's like 153 degrees of freedom. No? And just comparing similar article types (e.g. turtle examples) one can see how the payoff is just higher for championing. You can't rack up 500 view stars fast enought to make it work.

I guess...yeah I'm sure there are all kinds of factors. I think I blathered about a little of them, did I not? [Actually, I should just step back and let you say what you mean here, so I don't crowd the space and make sure to get your thinking.] I dig multifactor analysis (well, not really, I'm not a math jock, but I like imagining all these things as concepts). I would say though that we need to build insight from the mist. Before our single output metric was NUMBER of FAs and GAs. Sure that is a metric. But a pretty flawed one. Gameable. At least I add another factor (number of views) that gives a lot more insight than just "an article" into what the readers care about. (and VAs, Louie's importance and Gorbatai's project rankings...all show similar implications for a purely subjective ranking of importance.) .

In terms of causative factors...hey...I totally buy some of the fundamental issues with the Wiki: crappy interface, that you don't get a byline, that others can screw up your prose and bog you down with gnomey-shit fights that make you not even want to work on an article and then where is the damned gnome stuck with nothing to fuck with, Facebook competition, bullyboy admins, fill in more. But I would just counter this and say...yeah...we KNOW those things exist. And sure I'm up for the cause for fixing some of them. But we also KNOW star collecting is a substantial driver of behavior in the current situation. All the outside literature on the Internet supports this. And all the cuts of looking at things I did. Do we really think that all those hurricane articles would be FA/GA and Andrew not if the rewards were page view weighted somehow? That the WikiCup with pageview weighted rules would not drive very substantial contribution vice templated GAs? So sure...the problem is hypercomplicated, but that does not mean we can't get some insights and consider some changes right now.

Donno about more analysis. I personally punched all those pages, wrote down all those numbers, etc. without server data and made like 40 pages of Excel. The only places with server data are the published Gorbatai analysis and the new Gorbatai analysis. I think there is some academic interest that was already heading down these same tracks so maybe you get more of that power of analysis (although I find some times being close to the data helps as well...not just massive data crunching on variables provided, but doing cases and the like).

I've had a little discussion about an (probably more than one) academic paper. It might be a lot of work though. And I really wrote it as more of a corporate strategy weeney document than something academic. It's more like a selection of several of the (sometimes quite good) little studies that people do here on the Wiki to understand this or that (e.g. can see the ones done on IP vandalism of TFAs). I may have a paid gig coming in soon and need to keep earning dineros to feed my cats, so can't really commit to more grunt work. Maybe it sparks some thoughts?

I'm in favor of the small ownership exemption for FA and expanding it. You have a good point that it might never fly. And I really did not study it much or even think about it anyhoo. I had not considered the gamesmanship issue of losing what we have by going for more! Hmm. My main thing is not the protection though. It would be nice, but given the hurdle, think concentrating on things that are more feasible makes sense. Or just take what you can get wherever you can get it. Wiki has a way of bogging things down with perfect is the enemy of better.

P.s. Thanks again for the straight remarks. Fair enough.

P.s.s. I do think FA is in danger of becoming too much of a clique and a closed shop and they should think about it. Not just mobilize the white blood cells.

P.s.s. I'm a lousy speller and writer. But you know grammarian is a very weak flame warrior.

Hello from another rubbish speller. For sure the EH thing was going on before, but do you not see the ammo you are handing them? Your pres was used as a direct hit against her. Look, your not the first to take this position, but you are one of the most charming, and you have the most traction. I'm both protective of my sepcies (although motherfucker according to you I'm just a 0.33% dabbler) and keen that it leads to contrstucive (or whatever) debate. Your about half ways there imo, but you have a few holes in your theory and they need to be fixed. Lets be honest you are a FAC insider yourself, and nobody doubts your intention, but rather than damage and offend us, wanna engage and work with us. Moni seems v willing to engage ya, once she puts down her smelling salts, and TK sure is a somebody I work with a lot am am close to, and MF you have already said you respect. I can point out one weakness in your analysis off the top of my head (or my heart or whatever), your dismissal of easy passes at FAC ignore the fact that the page might have been (ideally) done early on, and the seemingly easily won supports were hard fought at GA and PR. Thre is that, and there is more too, but am slow brained at the moment. My suggestion, and I realise its from somebody you might only know from such noticeboards as [1][2][3][4][5][6] and wikietiquette (oh the irony)[7][8][9], is work on the method, and your work will do some good rather than be just a raft and stick for the likes of Mattise and the non content power hoars. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Re and she was willing to talk to me even as an evil IP and discuss Steinbeck and all. I took to heart your first wave of comments about broader topics on the FAC talk, its not a backing each other up things, its a friends think alike thats why they are friends thing. You can believe or not, but thats they way it is. I'm not given to pretense or duplicity, u can take me at face value. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are straight. Agreed, friends think alike. And the friends defend friends. I like that about Malleus even if we disagree on something.

That's cool that you thought the first discussion was worthwhile. Didn't realize that.

Let me take a look at the presentation and see about adding some caveats where individuals feel skewered. I don't want to baby it though because star collectors want to star collect. Or the FAC leader feels turfy.

On the content reviews, this is the kind of crit that is fine. That was a first pass attempt to try to do something. And it is not proving Euclid's theorems. It is analysis. We could try something else like having some magazine editor or the like read several reviews and see if content is not getting addressed well. I did try to look for previous reviews if referenced in the discussion and noted that. I have been a part of some reviews at FAC that were light on content discussion and the issue has been raised by others. It's not an insane thing to try to assess. We just have to figure out the right way to measure it and nail it. I do think a definitive statement (as with images or close paraphrasing) on content should be made ("I looked at content deeply in peer review") if that is what we are relying on. Obviously if the content is hashed out in the review itself than that covers it.

TK comments

Jumping into this but will in fits and starts as I read and review your power-point. First, I think there's a real serious organization problem - it's just too hard to follow logically and so certain bits and pieces jump out at the reader. Every reader comes away with what they want if they like it and with what they hate if they dislike it. As Ceoil says you have traction and it's too late to stuff this genie back in the bottle, so you need to spend some time with your methodoloy. I've been trying to review again and had to stop at the section about reviews - I can give tons of diffs for peer reviews, good article reviews, etc. It's true that some articles don't get a lot of content review at FAC, but that's because the writers were responsible and took the time to have reviews prior to FAC. You gotta fix that section, and do some research. Look at what the folks at Peer Review are doing, a very under-appreciated small group, and then try to correlate. The flipside is nominators who don't listen to reviewers; have a look whether nominators are listening to what reviewers are telling at GA on PR or simply rushing to FAC. Also, FAC isn't a step above GA. All too often I've seen a page pass GA and nominated at FAC within the hour or the next day. It should not happen that way! GA is a stepping stone - the bank of the river is still far away. A lot has to be done first. If an underprepared page shows up at FAC then naturally the first thing that will jump out at reviewers are seemingly trivial: MoS, refs, prose, etc. But the assumption is that stuff has to be right because this is a publishing endeavor of sorts. Then the content is dug into. I won't review pages that have obvious errors - too much of a timesink. Also you gotta gotta take out the personalities. Do not make labels, do not name names. Ever. This is the internet dude and bad shit happens. So stop that. I'll be back with more - am reviewing your piece. And listen to what Moni3 has to say would be my advice. Oh one last thing - if we follow the advice below to give partial stars or whatever, then people will stop writing. Period. And you will have brought down the entire FAC system. I think FAC like everything else everywhere else is flawed - I don't believe in perfection - but I don't think the problem lies with the process. And as processes go, it's pretty good in my view. The problem is elsewhere. If you apply a more rigorous methodology to your research you might discover the problem. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The other thing to look at is why reviewers don't oppose as much as they should. This is a perennial problem for Sandy et. al. They have to follow community consensus, and I think it's a process that works fairly well - most of the time. The problem lies, to some extent, with the reviewers of which there is a huge shortage. Have a look at this review. Most of my review is on the talk-page. I found out much later this was a commissioned piece but it was not ready for promotion so I opposed. Look at the language and tone from the nominator (who went to write a nasty essay about me which has since been deleted) and ask yourself whether reviewers need to spend volunteer time putting up with this kind of shit. And then extend it out and try to gather data. All I can tell you is that each time I've opposed on a review it's turned into a Bad Experience. I rarely review these days and I only review pages that I know I can support. But if nominators have friends tagging along behind who put in multiple drive-by supports and no one else will engage it causes a problem and often delegates have no choice but to promote. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm threading my comments here as I read. I have a question about the dates & the samples. Like seriously how do I get to be a battleship & Ceoil a dabbler? Or a BrianBoulton? Like seriously, have you looked at their pages? You need a much larger data set. And it would be interesting to see what happens if the data sample is expanded. More later. Still reading ..... making notes as I go along. I think if you stay with this data set that every table has to indicate the distribution clearly because at the moment I'm scrolling all over the place. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put some stuff here. It's not as well pulled together as I'd like but this battleship is tired and has had enough of this place for a while. Sorry if the points seem harsh, but for a full analysis I think you should take some of them into consideration. Also just be aware that the way this report was used against me on EH stopped the work there in its tracks. I know that wasn't the intention but there are ripple effects that can be potentially multiplied by a lot. Personally I'm starting to think this is not a very healthy place to spend time. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to concentrate, TK. I have to write some Signpost thingie (reporters getting people to do work...hmm...but then maybe I could become a reporter there...hmmm. Let's talk more later. I'll give everyone lots of time and probably bore you all with rebutalls. Quick couple shots though.

Sandy says she doesn't promote off of a vote, looks at the actual content...then complains about vapid supports influencing decisions. Which is it? Two claims are contrary. Personally, I think she should just make a call like a journal editor would (substance of the reviews) and not whine about the latter issue. A quick note on why things get dinged should be done though (like a journal). I'd gladly cede that level of control. I think the process as a whole benefits from it. And it IS a process, no matter what. We make some wrong calls on up/down as it is now. That's just natural. The question is what is best for the net result. Work smarter, not harder per Malleus.

Heck, it is leadership. I'm fine with a leader and a strong one. I would feel better with elected director/ates though. And clarifying the strange Raul situation (think how that looks to a "civilian" outsider new to the whole place.) Every other project does elections and they go fine. What is the concern? Not getting elected? It's all volunteer time anyways!

As far as the bottleneck of reviewers...duh. Go find more, develop more, teach more, grow more. That's the job of a strategic leader. Crying on FAC-T for reviews or just moving the same person's time around is fire-fighting. Grow the damned pie. Like there was a concern about image reviews. Seriously the image improvers (Graphics Lab) are some of the best, nicest people on Wiki. Little personal outreach and wham...get a few hooked into the program. (Heck, do it the right way and it even makes them feel proud and more connected to the best content writers...and for that matter the networking probably helps us start upping the actual QUALITY of the images. It's at least win/win/win.TCO (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you go and do your thing. Am logging off now. But a word of caution - as a researcher, which is what you're doing here, you cannot personalize anything. Be careful with that because it slants and will affect the outcome. And obviously the reception. But what's most important is that people will overlook the substance you want to present if it boils down to personalities. That's buying into the wiki culture of slamming others. Don't go there. Look at the facts only. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy says she doesn't promote off of a vote, looks at the actual content...then complains about vapid supports influencing decisions. If you'd pay more attention, be more diligent and precise, your research might be worth something. I don't complain about supports influencing decisions-- I frequently note that premature supports increase the backlog, as FACs that garner premature support have to be carried until the issues are pointed out by subsequent reviewers, or one of the delegates is forced to recuse and do it themselves. They are not contrary claims-- it is by looking at content that a delegate can see the premature supports. Further, I'm here to "call bullshit" on your personalization of issues that influenced your analysis, since you know as well as anyone that I had to point out an inaccuracy in a physics FAC after you supported it. How quickly you forget. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a nice find on the figure caption, Sandy. I just wish I had the fairness to give you an attagurl. Oh wait...I think I did!

But is a nit. Look at my overall review and say I did not engage with the content substantively. There was discussion of several aspects that lead to re-organization into Pu/U workstreams, clarification of percent yeild and percent enrichemnt, sections/paras added (security, nuclear medicine, naval reactors) and photos added etc. Hawkeye did the work and deserves the credit. But...I engaged with the content.

The metal was probably Al or Mg, but we don't know for sure. Just looking at the patent, written after the war, is actually not sufficient. The first refining runs were done with calcium (of course because fluorite is such a stable compound, it's what an inorganic chemist would just automatically try) and then they switched metals for the Ames Process. It is all connected.). The change to Al or Mg probably gives some better kinetics when you think of the actual lumps of stuff inside the pressure vessel and the formation of hard surfaces and the like. Anyhow. The original caption of the photo (xferre by ME from a different article, and I take responsibility) was driven by looking at an Ames poster which talks about the development of uranium refining and refers to calcium and then shows this picture. Personally, I would bet given scale and year this was Al or Mg. That said, I just finessed it by calling it a sacrifical metal and labeling the thing refining at Ames.

BTW, I also got a formal donation from Ames and a note from the director who appreciated the outreach and wanted to know when it ran on the Front Page so he could say good things about interaction with Wiki. And they gave us larger meg size images than what we had snagged...and FP.

It's also argument by gotcha and not holistic and implies some insane idea that every article is perfect. Clue: they ain't perfect in the real world! We would never publish a single one if avoiding error was the only variable in the equation to maximize.

And it is kinda ad hom or something (never took logic.) IOW, I made a single mistake in a review, or you caught a single one, therefore global examination of how content is handled is now decided? I don't care about the jab...I can take a punch. But it's a logical fallacy... :)

Peace. I need to buckle down and write some prose now for the Signpost. Free press is good. Although I don't like having to write some essay now after already doing all that analysis and not having a group of FAers to do it for me.  ;)

And I'm not here to take you on, to be validated by you, or pass through you like a gatekeeper. When you say something useful, I think that is great and additive. If you don't, I'm tranquil. You do a lot of work, sure, and make some good calls at time. But it's the larger group I'm talking to. I'm interested in general thinking across the community (even outside it). If they all pan it, so be it.

Now let me write in peace, to write. You can have your say across the whole project. And as much orange bars as you want...after Monday. TCO (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As more aptly stated by Moni3, you've got such big ones they must be scraping the ground by now. You ask that you be left to write in peace after you've made if more difficult for others to do just that (eg Truthkeeper88), made faulty statements about Ucucha's FAs, made a cowardly faulty analysis of an FA of an absent editor (Iridescent), abused of RTV (an abuse that wasn't allowed for even Rlevse I'll note), and just to put the icing on the cake, responded to canvassing to pass a DYK? Chutzpah for sure-- or just an oversized ego. That was a nice find on the figure caption, Sandy. But is a nit. Bait and switch much? Your original charge was that your version of my claims were contradictory and that I don't review content-- address that. It's in the nits that you find the evidence that I do review (um, even image captions) and did note faulty content even after a support by you, which by the way, you never did fix. You don't seem to know what a blast furnace is. Which brings us to a good point you raised: perhaps there are too many dilettantes writing in here, and perhaps we should recruit more "experts" as you say-- could you identify some who know how to conduct valid "studies" using scientific methods? I'm not much concerned with why you're here other than what you've already made obvious, but that you don't again abuse of RTV to troll the FAC page and insult worthy writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about you, Sandy. It's about the overall process. You are a strong reviewer and look at the articles more closely than other delegates and than many reviewers. The issue is that overall reviews by the set of reviewers are light (on content). That article would be heavily reviewed for content (and not just by me, but by several) regardless of the Ames photos. We have some that get passed without even a global claim "I checked content". Do you want to put money that if I get several subject matter experts or magazine editors to look at the issue of "level of content review" at FAC that they don't have some similar concerns?TCO (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's at a review from a subject matter expert. [2]. But you won't find much in FAC, most of the reviewing happened on the talk page while the page was being written. That happens frequently. Only 11 page view per day though - but it's a pretty page. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I love that. Am very proud of you or whoever did that. It's not even just about the review, but is great press for Wiki and might draw someone into the web.TCO (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I do think the FAC review page should mention it, though.TCO (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone did if for me. And I was angry. It's not my style to do that kind of thing. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK wheedling on page of TCO

A DYK nomination is stuck, like the turtle in The Grapes of Wrath, on its back. See User talk:TCO's latest and greatest entry.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never reviewed one to the old criteria. And I guess there are all kinds of new difficult stuff. Sounds really hard. Ah...fuck it...will be bold. OK.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Where else do you get to read about wartime heroism by a kid of 10-15, fighting Nazis? Where else are the gossip been forced to be moved to the talkpage? :)

The article has been reviewed for content and form. A question of close paraphrasing has been raised by Demiurge1000, so I rewrote anything that I had not rewritten before in KW fashion. You can see the discussion at the DYK page. If you want the articles, I can send you the pdf files from the Milton Quarterly. They are only 2-3 pages each. 03:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I come from a time when DYK just had someone look to see that the hook was cited and there was one cite per para and it met the word count and wasn't totally messy looking. It looks a lot more intense now. You want it checked for copyvio or reviewed like a GA or what?RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO!

You can recognize Demiurge1000 from my RfC and previous manifestations at RfAs/talk pages/AN/ANI, no doubt. He was lecturing us at Jimbo Wales's page last week about the importance of AGF and feminism ---or something---before I tuned him out.

The DYK standards have not changed. The article was first written using Professor George Bornstein's discussion of Patrides, which is available at the University of Michigan for free. There were horrific paraphrases like "CAP was in the army from 1952 to 1954" and "He served in the army between 1952 and 1954", which probably threatened the solvency of Professor Bornstein's intellectual-property portfolio. I rewrote anything that I hadn't written or extensively revised myself---so the article has the KW-stamp.

I would just stamp the article with approval "It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF" (and per KW and I having better things to do).

If you want the articles, let me know and I'll mail them. Professor Gordon Campbell gave the thumbs up to our CAP article weeks ago. I cannot explain why it has taken so long to get the DYK review done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Nice request. Will do.

That's some pretty obvious canvassing-- I've brought this to Nikkimaria's attention so she'll have another look to be sure issues were resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look, and it seems to be fixed (at least the sources I checked were)...but seriously, KW, whether it is or isn't your comment here does give the appearance of canvassing. You can't tell someone to "stamp the article with approval" and not be accused of impropriety, and sometimes the appearance of impropriety is as important as impropriety itself. Please be more careful in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria and Sandygeorgia!

I appreciate your formal notification, which should be given to all editors, regardless of their history with DYK or quality writing/reviewing. Nonetheless

• I used over the top phrasing to highlight the appearance of canvassing when I asked TCO to look at it.
• I trusted that TCO's reputation and record of care in reviewing suffice to allay suspicions that I had squirreled him away in my re-education camp in recent months and that I was now activating my Manchurian DYK reviewer.
• I answered directly when TCO asked me what to do. I said the question had been raised about Borenstein and paraphrasing, and that my rewriting should have eliminated any appearance of paraphrasing (modulo Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote). If he wanted to check the other references, I should have been happy to mail them to him (or another reviewer).
• However, it does not surprise me that TCO appraised the article at near GA status, since I recently raised it to B status (with no complaints). He himself wondered whether this was supposed to be a GA review, now at DYK! That's why I suggested, publicly with over the top language, that he could easily look at the public sources and could AGF the rest---AGF being a policy that Demiurge1000 often cites and practices when it does not interfere with his favorite hobbies.
• I have been surprised by the long delay in reviewing an easy DYK, of interest to many projects (duly notified), as has one DYK regular who gave me an undeserved apology---a striking reversal of the usual behavior of blaming "the community" for one's faults, there! I regard the latest delay in the article as ridiculous (and again note that role of Demiurge1000 in my RfC, and his attempt to parody my presentation of a close paraphrase of an unreliable "history").

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the sources and read the article and looked for plagiarism or close paraphrase or whatever we call it as that seemed like the major concern from previous reviews on the DYK page and other than that, it looked like a pretty decent new article.

Looked fine to me although I am not a superstar in finding tiny phrase copies and lack a tool. But pretty decent at scanning and having warning bells go off when we are cribbing. I had some other comments on the thing (see article talk page). Hope they are helpful as you develop it.

Don't need to worry about me meatpuppeting. Yeah, I have a warm spot for Kiefer. But I'm honorable. Not into the scarlet C (for canvass) or the Kabuki theater we do with asking for reviews or views or whatever in exactly the right words. I know if I am just biasing a vote or am trying to look at a piece fairly. Plus KW is just being acerbic.

Nuff said...that is how I roll.

Heck...I figured it would give something to gotcha me for if a phrase turned up! (But I really did read the three sources and the article...and make an honest review...what is on the DYK and article talk is what I'm capable of.)

To both of you-- here's how it's done: "I was asked by the nominator to look at this ... " Easy enough. Further, Kiefer, I don't share your confidence in TCO's care in reviewing anything; I find the evidence shows him to be often impulsive and drawn to premature conclusions based on faulty analyses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, that diff wasn't warranted; it just shows that TCO may have made an error, an irrelevant point, since nobody has claimed that TCO is perfect. On the contrary, TCO has humbly stated his comfort Indeed, everybody makes mistakes, and so your citation and characterization was mean in appearance.

TCO is the rare editor with real intellectual curiosity, who tries to understand new things, and his reviewing of my article on a mathematical topic, Shapley-Folkman lemma, shows an intelligent mind wanting to understand the truth, which is the principle qualification for good contributions to an encyclopedia.

Your suggestion that TCO preface his review with that phrase is good.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's got an opinion, you know what that's like, and if they happen to line up with the editorial position taken by The Signpost, you can even get an audience for faulty analyses ala if you put in fancy colors and pie charts, you can pretend that your "stats" show something. Sorry, I don't share your views on TCO since he's prone to jump to conclusions on faulty bases. But I will say, while I find your quirky approach to the craziness that is Wikipedia sometimes endearing, I find TCO to be a rather tedious bore, since he's mostly impressed by ... himself. And he puts up strawmen and is evasive ... still hasn't addressed his false claim that I'm "contradictory". FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy,

I prescribe you two Song of Myselfs and a time-out from TCO is you are upset with "contradictory"! ;)

"Do I contradict myself?/ Very well then I contradict myself,/ I am large, I contain multitudes."

Peace,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to start with that "peace" claptrap, too, I'll retract. It's kinda disgusting that TCO launched attacks on the work of worthy writers, found to mostly false, without having previously discussed them on article talk so the authors would have the courtesy of advance notice before the "grenades" were lobbed, and then notifies them signing off with "peace". Saying it doesn't make it so. That technique is ... part of the tedious bore. Sorry to see you go there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Peace is not a claptrap. Central America is better now that there are not large gangs of armed men killing civilians and sometimes each another.

Wikipedia sometimes becomes a soul-deadening battleground, and it is not worth it. If you want to discuss the problems further with TCO, then please wait a few days or a week. Justice,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that Central America is better now that the large groups of armed men killing civilians and sometimes each other migrated north? They didn't stop killing-- killers don't change. Being abusive and then signing "peace" is just ... more abusive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We disagree about human rights issues regarding Central America, about which I trust the assessments of progress of Oscar Arias and WOLA, etc. more than your doomful determinism.

I sincerely wished you peace before. I never abused you. I wish you peace now.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Important articles

Dear TCO,

I was feeling like the soon-to-be neurotic kid in dysfunctional family. I had no idea why SandyGeorgia was so upset with you, TCO.

I just read your essay. Let me say that I'll proof-read your next presentations, gratis, and help you avoid singling out editors, which is almost always a bad idea. In this case, I cringed when I read the names of selected "problem editors". (I'm glad you patted Jakob on the back, because he showed me how to write GA-level articles.)

You can understand how SG and others at FA Asgard must feel after your presentation. All writers hate criticism. I wish you had tried to put yourself in their shoes more. What's done is done. I trust that people shall soon think of your kindnesses, over many years. I certainly think of you as a kind person, and I don't judge you as any worse than myself. I've had bad days a plenty.

That said, I agree with most of your analysis, but I think you put too much faith in institutional formalities and too much importance on the mean, which is a dangerous summary statistic for long-tailed distributions, especially the power laws you mentioned. :)

What is important is that we nurture writers and editors, whomever they are and whatever their interests. There are other encyclopedias and surveys, like the Encyclopedia of Statistics or the New Palgrave or the Russian Encyclopedia of Mathematics, so the world can survive without an FA article on convex sets. I think it's fine that we offer good references in articles on important subjects, and that we develop articles that are ignored by other sources.

We need leadership, like you and Geometry guy and Jakob and Charles Matthew and MF, etc., all of whom have helped teach me how to write. We need to to find and develop editors. Everything else is secondary. I liked some of your suggestions about finding more quality writers, and I hope that others will re-read your paper and see the wealth of ideas and good suggestions.

On the other hand, would we really want our friends or family to edit here?

In my experience, whenever I stray from mathematical topics, I run into POV pushers and weirdos that make editing a pain. I've given up on many of the articles that I used to protect, before my RfC. (Partly because none of the statisticians bothered to help at my RfC.) Editing on vital topics---or even important topics, like the guys who brought us the 40 hour workweek and the March on Washington with King's "I have a Dream" speech---usually means running into kids who at best have read a few books on the topic, and most of those books were written by hacks! When we try to defend our articles or to fix despicable articles, too many administrators come to the aid of the incompetents or POV pushers. It is not worth the trouble to write on important topics outside of mathematics. I am happy to tell the story of Tom Kahn but I wouldn't dare bother with a more important, controversial article.

I think it was Sandy who mentioned to me that editors who stay usually write in a relatively quiet corner. We won't be able to change WP for the better until we have enough happy editors in their corners that we can change policies to deal with administrators who value "civility" above truth and honesty.

That's my take.

With respect and affection,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the discussion

I note the clarification and appreciate your point. Would still say that it is a contradiction. If it's a useless support in terms of final promotion, then why let it affect your decision to kick something off the queue? This is getting tedious though. I'm usually willing to engage point for point to an extent that it is boring for people. I've seen you go pretty radio silent yourself, when corrected.TCO (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I go "radio silent" when my feedback would affect an ongoing FAC. Try exercising some responsibility yourself sometime-- you might find it informative to think about FAC from the vantage point of someone else's shoes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rights

TCO, following Xeno's various moves I have restored your userrights. I am uncertain if the TCO (renamed) account should be blocked. I will consult with Xeno on that, I guess. Welcome back, but whoa!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the user page to consolidate also.

WTF is this whoa stuff?

I'm going to move the one essay as well. Didn't work for me, please move. (All my haters want stuff under main account. This is very Brer Rabbit briar patch. Like reverse psychology.  ;))

Can you bring back the sandbox and associated pages?

And the alternate account was either from Karan bringing it back or a glitch of the universal login. I tried to keep my posts on the main (renamed retired) account the whole time. But the hayterz and conspiracy theorists can make hay if they want. I like going into battle with a few chinks (OK gaping holes) in the armor. Might make it a fair fight for the other guy(s).  ;)

Wiki still needs to get basic smiley code enabled. Most forums had this ten years ago. TCO (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I undeleted the sandbox. Yes, the Wiki interface reminds me very much of SCRIPSIT, if you recall it. I will hunt down the other pages but it will be faster if you tell me where they were. And "Whoa" is a general-purpose exclamatory these days, or so the kids tell me.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Focus on unimportant content

I am a strong supporter of the thoughts in your slide deck. The importance of FA, first page promotion, edit counter ... is mainly that they function as incentives. These incentives should be designed to stimulate as valuable work as possible. An article that is seen by many is more valuable than an article that is seen by few. An article that is deemed very important by a project is most likely more valuable than an article that is deemed unimportant. That is the whole point of making those evalutations (of subjects, not the content). We should strive to design these systems so that star collecting creates as valuable content as possible. Star collection behaviour is not a problem. The problem is that we hand out flawed stars, or rather, that the star eligibility criteria are flawed. We should create an value creation counter that weighs in quality of article, number of page views, number of characters added (deletions are a bit tricky), vital article status etc. Only articles of broad interest should be promoted on the first page. If FA's are lacking, we should promote GA's instead. --Ettrig (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

GMTA. Yeah...this was something I was thinking about last few days--I guess it takes me a while to figure things out. The BFAN push, user candy, and TFA spot are exactly the same for "Ernest Hemingway" as for "Waddesdon Road railway station". With TFA, it even gives a negative (true) impression that we have a few (admittedly top-notch) people concentrating on obscure topics. And the argument that we need to show the public that we have obscure things covered, not just big topics, is laughable. I think everyone knows we are large and knows when the Google almost anything, we come up. I think Kevin Myer's (a real scholar btw) GA on "Declaration of Independence is more noteworthy and relevant to who we should care about (the readers!) than many starred topics.TCO (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No team mates / no excuses

You might appreciate this.. Football is 0 and infinity.Basketball only slightly better. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding. Some serious credit must go to the coach. It can't all be the feeder system. And I don't see how it would be demographics. As with teaching, there are definitely some who are special.TCO (talk) 15:45, 26 November 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

Poorly executed

Your report was poorly executed and damaging to Wikipedia. Behind usernames there are individual human beings but your report treats them like commodities. Calling Feature Article writers "Star collectors" is pejorative in that implies vanity as motivation. Can you tell me who the authors of Apache are? That's a far more important open source project than Wikipedia and its creators are essentially anonymous. Pitting editors in a "contest" that neither has entered and then declaring a winner??

The primary asset of Wikipedia is editors -- people -- which are mostly entirely volunteers. Offending "non vital" featured article writers is not very likely to make them go edit the so-called vital articles, it's more likely to make them less motivated to edit.

It's likely -- probable even -- that you have a valid point that the incentive structure of Wikipedia could be improved. (It's ironic that the rhetoric of the report shows such little understanding of motivation.) With care, it could have easily been written to make the same point without naming names and pissing people off. Comment on content, not on contributors is Wikipedia 101. Gerardw (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

i agree with the broad strokes, that we need to be more outer directed rather than inner directed; more effort to where the eyeballs are. not sure i buy the Growth-share matrix bcg speak. i agree with gerard that you could have written in a more positive way, rather than negative. i wouldn't push the skinner stuff too far (i.e. eye candy causes effort). the strategic plan critique is little commented on, but just as negative. i would like to see an action plan, for the foundation about quality and vital quality improvement. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wiki all the time. 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)