FAC-instructions
Proposed change to the instructions #1
Current instruction:
:"You may want to list the article for Peer review first."
Proposed change:
:"Nominate an article only if you are reasonably confident that it is ''already'' featured-article quality — or very close to it; if you want feedback on how to improve an article to featured-article quality, or simply to check whether the article is suitable for nomination, you are encouraged to list the article on comedy ringtones Peer review."
Rationale for change:
: FAC exists to ''identify'' articles which are of the highest quality, not to ''generate'' articles of the highest quality. Of course, there will often be problems identified, typically minor issues, which are fixed, but that's a secondary process. Occasionally, pages are entirely rewritten after a stint on FAC — e.g. Melissa Midwest PaX — this is (of course) a good thing, but this is not the primary purpose of ''this page''. Nominators should be encouraged to "think twice", and maybe run the articles through Peer Review, not as an obligatory requirement, but to double-check if they have any doubts about the quality. This change should discourage nominations where the article clearly isn't up to scratch. hiphop ringtones Matt Crypto/— Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004
:I really think we ought to link to peer review. It needs all the support it can get, and it was just refactored to resemble FAC (there's talk of even creating a template-based system like that on VfD to accomodate the possible numerous requests). We really need to dissuade people from making frivolous nominations on FAC. Mindy Vega Johnleemk/Johnleemk / Nextel ringtones User talk:Johnleemk/Talk 10:49, 7 Aug 2004
Proposed change to the instructions #2
Proposed addition:
: * Planet Corrina Featured article removal candidates — candidates for removal from Featured Article status
Rationale:
: The removal page could do with more visibility, and a link from FAC is logical, because the evaluation is essentially the same. Free ringtones Matt Crypto/— Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004
::I don't particularly want to advertise the removal candidates page for now because the rules there are still ill-defined and not troll restistant at all. For the time being, I have commitments elsewhere on Wikipedia so I don't have time to sit down and hash out good rules. Planet Katie Raul654/→Raul654 05:21, Jul 22, 2004
Apologies
I just got through with a major refactoring of the archived nominations, so I decided to attack the instructions next. Apologies if my Mosquito ringtone Be bold in updating pages/being bold was a little ''too'' bold — revert where necessary, of course. Planet Mandy Benc/• BencCingular Ringtones User_talk:Benc/ • 14:16, 27 Aug 2004
Suggestion from a FAC newbie
I wanted to nominate an article. I went to cremated philadelphia Featured article candidates whereupon I read the instruction that are included in this template.
I then edited the page to add the article that I wanted to nominate.
I did it wrong and dorsal fins User:Mirv/Mirv got huffy because he had to fix my mistake.
Now, I read instructions. What I did not anticipate is that lower down (below the table of contents in the "Nominated Articles" section) is the following:
:'''Add new nominations by placing as the first step to nomination.
Finally, the instructions should give some guidance for people to look in the archives for prior nominations of a page to discern if it has been nominated before and if it has if the objections have been corrected. I would recommend the following text for that purpose (I tried to add something similar but variant forms User:Raul654 apparently didn't like it and ripped it out):
:When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for spielberg ignores Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/previous nominations and check if the objections noted then have been addressed.
Also why are these instructions in a template instead of just being on the page, that doesn't make any sense.
Those are my two cents. president philosophy Kevin Rector/Kevin Rector 01:38, Dec 10, 2004
:You make a valid point. I wrote the FAC instructions (in particular, I pruned them from the 3 page long monstrosity they used to be to the current template version). The bolded instructions were added later, and I haven't yet had the opportunity to integrate them. I'll make it a point to do so soon. conduct warfare Raul654/→Raul654 02:09, Dec 10, 2004
::I've tried to do so, but I'm sure you can fix it up a little. commercial values Johnleemk/Johnleemk / done validity User talk:Johnleemk/Talk 11:27, 11 Dec 2004
Community Standards have "nothing to do with the FAC"
This seems like an incredibly short sighted statement. I had included an extremely short community standards section which, in its entirety, stated, "Please adhere to applicable community soldiers confirmed Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout/standards and conventions of writing and layout." Raul654 decided to revert my edit, presumably believing that conventions of signatures, adding comments verticly, using UTC, etc., etc., etc. don't apply. jurors portrayed Pencil Pusher/Pencil Pusher 22:53, 8 Feb 2005
:This is pure traveler who m:instruction creep/instruction creep. We don't need these kinds of garbage tips - signing your comments with ~~~~ is something you are '''expected''' to do, it's not a helpful hint to pick up sometime down the road. If you don't know about these things, then read the new user tutorial. We are not going to add a tutorial to every template and set of instructions. have through Raul654/→Raul654 22:56, Feb 8, 2005
No, what is garbage is promoting a unimportant on byzantine system where people do not immediately know how to contribute. If you are '''already''' providing instructions to someone, then it only makes sense to provide them with a link to the full set of instructions. People do not simply learn how to post by baseless rumor osmosis. Why is someone "expected" to know how to sign their name, but not "expected" to know how to add a nomination or how to object or support a nomination. Think about your target audience. Edit: your little addition "we are not going to..." did not go unnoticed. You may be an admin, but that does not enable you to speak for the community. If you abuse your admin status by insinuating that your opinion is shared by all, I can almost guarantee your status will not last very long.muhammad about Pencil Pusher/Pencil Pusher 23:04, 8 Feb 2005
:Where on earth are the threats coming from? I can see both sides of the argument and think I'll side with Raul on this one. two moderately Violetriga/violet/riga dnc or User_talk:violetriga/(t) 23:46, 8 Feb 2005
:Most new users don't go to FAC as their first action. By the time editors become familiar with behind-the-scenes work, they already know to sign their names and such. On the other hand, nominating instructions are very specialized and only apply to this one area of Wikipedia, so it's quite safe to presume unfamiliarity with them. Also, Raul ''does'' have authority in this area, as he is the Featured Articles director. bedside companion Slowking Man/Slowking Man 08:34, Feb 9, 2005
You can't have it both ways. Either your audience knows "If you approve of an article, write "Support" followed by your reasons" or it doesn't. Either you audience knows "To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it" or it doesn't. If your audience doesn't know it, then you need to be helpful and attempt to further clarify. Hiding behind "experinced people should know..." is elitism and, frankly, inapposite to the purpose of instructions. Either make the page off limits to everyone but admins, or make the page accessible to everyone. Hell, at the very least place a banner across the top of the page that states, "this section should only be used by editors who have become familiar with behind-the-scenes work." The passive-aggressive mid-point of "these pages are only accessible to those who have braved their way through the labyrith of wikipedia" should not be an option. You either believe your audience should be restricted or you believe your audience should be open. Stand by your convictions, whatever they are. But I see the admins already circling their wagons. Passive agressiveness has apparently won the day. its sorrow Pencil Pusher/Pencil Pusher 09:28, 9 Feb 2005 . P.S. yes, those 12 words were a huge step towards opening up the audience and being inclusive instead of exclusive. Unfortunatley, that is apparently not the intent.
Current instruction:
:"You may want to list the article for Peer review first."
Proposed change:
:"Nominate an article only if you are reasonably confident that it is ''already'' featured-article quality — or very close to it; if you want feedback on how to improve an article to featured-article quality, or simply to check whether the article is suitable for nomination, you are encouraged to list the article on comedy ringtones Peer review."
Rationale for change:
: FAC exists to ''identify'' articles which are of the highest quality, not to ''generate'' articles of the highest quality. Of course, there will often be problems identified, typically minor issues, which are fixed, but that's a secondary process. Occasionally, pages are entirely rewritten after a stint on FAC — e.g. Melissa Midwest PaX — this is (of course) a good thing, but this is not the primary purpose of ''this page''. Nominators should be encouraged to "think twice", and maybe run the articles through Peer Review, not as an obligatory requirement, but to double-check if they have any doubts about the quality. This change should discourage nominations where the article clearly isn't up to scratch. hiphop ringtones Matt Crypto/— Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004
:I really think we ought to link to peer review. It needs all the support it can get, and it was just refactored to resemble FAC (there's talk of even creating a template-based system like that on VfD to accomodate the possible numerous requests). We really need to dissuade people from making frivolous nominations on FAC. Mindy Vega Johnleemk/Johnleemk / Nextel ringtones User talk:Johnleemk/Talk 10:49, 7 Aug 2004
Proposed change to the instructions #2
Proposed addition:
: * Planet Corrina Featured article removal candidates — candidates for removal from Featured Article status
Rationale:
: The removal page could do with more visibility, and a link from FAC is logical, because the evaluation is essentially the same. Free ringtones Matt Crypto/— Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004
::I don't particularly want to advertise the removal candidates page for now because the rules there are still ill-defined and not troll restistant at all. For the time being, I have commitments elsewhere on Wikipedia so I don't have time to sit down and hash out good rules. Planet Katie Raul654/→Raul654 05:21, Jul 22, 2004
Apologies
I just got through with a major refactoring of the archived nominations, so I decided to attack the instructions next. Apologies if my Mosquito ringtone Be bold in updating pages/being bold was a little ''too'' bold — revert where necessary, of course. Planet Mandy Benc/• BencCingular Ringtones User_talk:Benc/ • 14:16, 27 Aug 2004
Suggestion from a FAC newbie
I wanted to nominate an article. I went to cremated philadelphia Featured article candidates whereupon I read the instruction that are included in this template.
I then edited the page to add the article that I wanted to nominate.
I did it wrong and dorsal fins User:Mirv/Mirv got huffy because he had to fix my mistake.
Now, I read instructions. What I did not anticipate is that lower down (below the table of contents in the "Nominated Articles" section) is the following:
:'''Add new nominations by placing as the first step to nomination.
Finally, the instructions should give some guidance for people to look in the archives for prior nominations of a page to discern if it has been nominated before and if it has if the objections have been corrected. I would recommend the following text for that purpose (I tried to add something similar but variant forms User:Raul654 apparently didn't like it and ripped it out):
:When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for spielberg ignores Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/previous nominations and check if the objections noted then have been addressed.
Also why are these instructions in a template instead of just being on the page, that doesn't make any sense.
Those are my two cents. president philosophy Kevin Rector/Kevin Rector 01:38, Dec 10, 2004
:You make a valid point. I wrote the FAC instructions (in particular, I pruned them from the 3 page long monstrosity they used to be to the current template version). The bolded instructions were added later, and I haven't yet had the opportunity to integrate them. I'll make it a point to do so soon. conduct warfare Raul654/→Raul654 02:09, Dec 10, 2004
::I've tried to do so, but I'm sure you can fix it up a little. commercial values Johnleemk/Johnleemk / done validity User talk:Johnleemk/Talk 11:27, 11 Dec 2004
Community Standards have "nothing to do with the FAC"
This seems like an incredibly short sighted statement. I had included an extremely short community standards section which, in its entirety, stated, "Please adhere to applicable community soldiers confirmed Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout/standards and conventions of writing and layout." Raul654 decided to revert my edit, presumably believing that conventions of signatures, adding comments verticly, using UTC, etc., etc., etc. don't apply. jurors portrayed Pencil Pusher/Pencil Pusher 22:53, 8 Feb 2005
:This is pure traveler who m:instruction creep/instruction creep. We don't need these kinds of garbage tips - signing your comments with ~~~~ is something you are '''expected''' to do, it's not a helpful hint to pick up sometime down the road. If you don't know about these things, then read the new user tutorial. We are not going to add a tutorial to every template and set of instructions. have through Raul654/→Raul654 22:56, Feb 8, 2005
No, what is garbage is promoting a unimportant on byzantine system where people do not immediately know how to contribute. If you are '''already''' providing instructions to someone, then it only makes sense to provide them with a link to the full set of instructions. People do not simply learn how to post by baseless rumor osmosis. Why is someone "expected" to know how to sign their name, but not "expected" to know how to add a nomination or how to object or support a nomination. Think about your target audience. Edit: your little addition "we are not going to..." did not go unnoticed. You may be an admin, but that does not enable you to speak for the community. If you abuse your admin status by insinuating that your opinion is shared by all, I can almost guarantee your status will not last very long.muhammad about Pencil Pusher/Pencil Pusher 23:04, 8 Feb 2005
:Where on earth are the threats coming from? I can see both sides of the argument and think I'll side with Raul on this one. two moderately Violetriga/violet/riga dnc or User_talk:violetriga/(t) 23:46, 8 Feb 2005
:Most new users don't go to FAC as their first action. By the time editors become familiar with behind-the-scenes work, they already know to sign their names and such. On the other hand, nominating instructions are very specialized and only apply to this one area of Wikipedia, so it's quite safe to presume unfamiliarity with them. Also, Raul ''does'' have authority in this area, as he is the Featured Articles director. bedside companion Slowking Man/Slowking Man 08:34, Feb 9, 2005
You can't have it both ways. Either your audience knows "If you approve of an article, write "Support" followed by your reasons" or it doesn't. Either you audience knows "To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it" or it doesn't. If your audience doesn't know it, then you need to be helpful and attempt to further clarify. Hiding behind "experinced people should know..." is elitism and, frankly, inapposite to the purpose of instructions. Either make the page off limits to everyone but admins, or make the page accessible to everyone. Hell, at the very least place a banner across the top of the page that states, "this section should only be used by editors who have become familiar with behind-the-scenes work." The passive-aggressive mid-point of "these pages are only accessible to those who have braved their way through the labyrith of wikipedia" should not be an option. You either believe your audience should be restricted or you believe your audience should be open. Stand by your convictions, whatever they are. But I see the admins already circling their wagons. Passive agressiveness has apparently won the day. its sorrow Pencil Pusher/Pencil Pusher 09:28, 9 Feb 2005 . P.S. yes, those 12 words were a huge step towards opening up the audience and being inclusive instead of exclusive. Unfortunatley, that is apparently not the intent.
posted at 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home