Wikipedia talk:One featured article
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In case those who don't get it, this is a general essay and not advocacy, merely to explain the philosophy of 1FA by itself! - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I personally feel it is not a good guideline. Yes, it would be wonderful if all articles on Wikipedia were of the caliber of featured articles, but it is not the holy grail, the only thing that can be done here that is great work deserving of top flight recognition for contributing to the encyclopedia. For example, if a person does substantial work on a stub article, turning it into a well referenced good article, that kind of work is every bit as important as helping an article become featured. There are many other examples. Further, that a person hasn't worked to bring an article to featured article status does not necessarily speak to their abilities as an admin. Blocking someone, deleting a page, protecting a page...these functions have nothing to do with featured article writing. --Durin
- 1FA isn't perfect by itself, as I found that out myself when I adopted it once. The philosophy is that every good article have the potential to turn into featured articles (understandably, it is hard for certain titles, but still possibly), and that we are handing power to those who write the article who know what the eventual aim is - to write an encyclopedia. The ability of writing a featured article does display positive qualities is regarded to have shown understanding of what the encyclopedia is looking towards to be and deal with article quality using his/her sysop tools, that some say that we have actually lost sight upon. - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the sentiment behind 1FA, but I can't support it as a requirement for adminship (it should be a separate, bragged-about category of editor - and in some ways, it is, although the latter page is technically for nominators). I would think the last thing we want is for our best editors to be mired in the behind-the-scenes drama/bureaucracy of meta space. I don't believe that's the intent (it seems to be desired to work the other way around, that metapedians become better editors) but if it gained wide traction, I think the opposite would be the result. Different people have different skill sets, and the overlap between featured articles and adminship seems relatively small to me. Which is not the same as saying that good article writing/researching skills and adminship are unrelated; far from it, in my mind (and standards). This just seems overly narrow. -- nae'blis 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter
Here is a related idea for people to think over. Marskell 16:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My Opinion
Administrator privileges are mostly janitorial tasks designed to uphold and look after the encyclopedia. Improving articles to featured status is about research, reading and hours of writing. To do at least one of these would require a lot of energy and commitment. So how are those two things at all related? If I was part of the wikipedian cabal (fictionally speaking) I would want my administrators primarily concentrating on the tasks they are able to do as an administrator (plenty of them) rather be concerned with research. If the person is already very janitorial, why would you wish to oppose for this reason since as administrators they will be doing janitorial stuff? Something to think about if anyone thinking of using this to oppose (publicly or in their mind). - Tutmosis 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exopedian's Idealism
Sure, the ideal encyclopedia involves everyone working only to write great articles. However, this also means that the ideal eneyclopedia requires no administrators. Sure, it'd be great if we needed no admins, but until that day... Friday (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should be at Wikipedia:One featured article
So much for making advocacy for featured articles, this page doesn't even follow the Manual of style, a sure "object" vote at WP:FAC, lol. --Howard the Duck 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
