Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] knock knock-- this project alive or dead?

Anybody home? There were new posts by another Wikipedian today, but a three month gap before that. User:Jmabel had a comment that went unaddressed for a month (looking at the edit history of this page). Is this project alive or dead?? Looks useful, but looks deceased to me. --Ling.Nut 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be inactive doesn't it. I've tagged it as such; if that doesn't bring folks out of the woodwork assume it's dead. --kingboyk 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I just joined. I will be coming here quite a bit, but the learning curve is quite steep, and
it's taking a lot of time to familiarize myself with the project. But I'm no easy quitter.
I'll be coming here a lot. Richiar 18:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I try again

Encyclopedic standards include honesty. I have been observing several very common practices: Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and not indicating what part Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and copying the whole thing intact, without saying so. Not putting a notice , but doing likewise this is being done from Public domain sources, and is indeed legal, but it borderline in terms of ethics, non-encyclopedist in nature, and is taken outside WP as an indication of our lack of seriousness. When was there last a discussion of this? I try here because it is being ignred everywhere. Perhaps I should design a cateogry box, and use it///

[edit] Encyclopedia of Earth


[edit] Proposal for Committees and for a possible communication assessment model

I deleted material from this page which I had placed earlier, as it seems irrelevent now that I have relected on things some. Richiar 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification of communications
High quality edit Contributory edit Mixed edit Noncontributory edit Negative edit Dead on arrival
xxx-(+2)-xxx xxx-(+1)-xxx xxx-(+0.5)-xxx xxx-(0)-xxx xxx-(-1)-xxx xxx-(-2)-xxx

Status of aritcle:

[FA - featured article] [GA - good article] [AD - article in development] [AR - article at risk] [S- stub] [AN - article needed]

Status of editing community:

[active community/-inactive community] [thriving community/-developing community/-community at risk] (under development)

Basics of group dynamics:

fight/flight/work group (Bion)


Principles of Community-building: - (Peck)

Stages of Community evolution

  • Pseudocommunity
  • Chaos
  • Emptiness
  • Community

[edit] Quality Management Frame

I am initiating a subpage entitled Quality Management Frame (QMF) as a way for editors to "manage" quality, within the context of the Forum for Encyclpedic Standards. Richiar 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Try the following link for creating a page with that name. (SEWilco 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

  • Wikipedia: Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Quality Management Frame

[edit] Will transfer material to quality management project

I haven't heard any negative responses, so I will proceed with opening up the quality management project based on the above discussion. Richiar 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active, merely quiet

I've been working on items related to this project, I've just had nothing to say here. As far as I'm concerned the project is active, although not discussing much. (SEWilco 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Encyclopedic Standards and Article Validation

This Forum seems to have come to the attention of the "Article Validation" section of Wikipedia. As I reviewed the section "Article Validation", there seems to be similar concerns to the ones here, but I couldn't find any organized discussion. So, I am putting a link here: [1] for others to see. In the meantime, I am active in trying to develop some kind of encyclopedic standards format that is practical, and I will be here biweekly if not weekly. I continue to be active in working on this. Richiar 20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to peer-review nominations for editorial review

I have a serious concern: a recent article I consulted had a bright blue box "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines...".

OK, fine. Someone with the label "editor" thinks that this article "doesn't matter". He (or she) is entitled to his (or her) opinion. But why do I have any reason to think the "editor" has any interest in this area? If I didn't care about math or physics, maybe I'd mark the article on the Lorentz transformation as "doesnt satisfy MY notability guidelines".

Back to my point: the "editor" is entitled to his/her opinion, but I question two facets of Wikipedia:

  • Why should someone with the term "editor" get to establish this bright blue box?
  • Why should the editor's name be withheld? If this editor has a passion for squelching articles on a particular topic, then his/her bias might show through, and such nominations for "doesn't matter" should be discarded summarily, or at least peer-reviewed.

Proposals:

  • Nomination for such markings should be reviewed by an editorial panel. If 5 editors on a random panel of 10 agree that an article is questionable, perhaps only then should the article be nominated for talk
  • When used, the legend of the box should be changed to "editor [EditorsName] has expressed...".

Thanks for your consideration.... Harasty 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My view has always been that everyone is an editor. It is the responability of the person that would like to keep the material to assert the notability of the article subject. If the article does not do it well enough that the editor reading it is convinced, then it automatically represents a need for discussion.
Regarding the box having the editor's name in it, if you check history, the edit summary should show who it is that flagged it. Why should that matter though? If you simply go to the talk page and cite the notability, you are entitled to remove the tag at that point. Slavlin 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EForum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards_8b38.html"