Wikipedia:One featured article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. "
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Shortcut:
WP:1FA

One featured article (1FA) is a criterion few may consider as a factor for supporting or opposing an editor's request for adminship.

First put forth by Jguk, the criterion states that "The candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status."

Currently, this criterion has not gained widespread acceptance by the community in general.

Contents

[edit] Thesis

[edit] Exopedian's Idealism

The ideal encyclopedia is one where everyone is working to write (literally) an encyclopedia, and the one and only important goal is as such. In such a case, perhaps the only way to judge an editor's worth is by their ability to write quality articles, and in this case, featured articles. One may argue, that it should be editors (as in writing the encyclopedia) that are the ones in charge of the encyclopedia to further this goal.

A common criticism of Wikipedia is that it focuses on quantity rather than quality, resulting in just a mediocre encyclopedia. The current ratio of featured articles approximately stands at a dismal 1:1240. Using 1FA as a criterion for adminship may force prospective editors who may focus largely on internal processes (lack of process participation is a common reason for opposition of one's RfA) to turn their attention on writing quality articles, encouraging all-roundedness.

Exopedians, for this reason, are likely to find this criterion highly favourable.

[edit] Editcountitis

Historically, there were concerns of editicountitis in RfAs, where editors tend to focus on the quantity of edits made, rather than the quality. In such cases, 1FA may be seen as a viable alternative as to guage the quality of one's contributions.

Today, editcountitis in RfAs have appeared to be less of a problem, in particular since the breakdown on edit-counting tools on Wikipedia.

[edit] Anti-Thesis

[edit] Inflexibility

1FA does not account for other forms of encyclopedia writing on Wikipedia, to varying degrees. Editors may allow for substitutes for 1FA (such as FL, FP), while others strictly insist on one and only one featured article. WikiGnomes who perform cleanup, spell-checking and other aspects of article-writing may find themselves opposed for not fulfilling 1FA.

[edit] Metapedianism

1FA does not take into credit contributions by an editor to the internal processes of Wikipedia, such as vandal-fighting and image-tagging. In an ideal encyclopedia, (see above) internal processes are not seen to be just as important, but pragmatically such processes are essential for the running of the encyclopedia.

Editors who mainly slog out at these processes rather than focusing on article-writing, may feel that they are still contributing to writing the encyclopedia in what they do, and hence are likely to find themselves being alienated by this criterion. In such cases it may impede the editors from gaining access to admin tools, which further their workings in the internal aspects of Wikipedia.

Metapedians, for this reason, are likely to find this criterion highly unfavourable.

[edit] Essays

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/n/e/Wikipedia%7EOne_featured_article_7f42.html"