User:Piano non troppo: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

m

Line 9:

Contrary to Wikipedia's general editing policies, Featured Articles are automatically protected for several months from reevaluation. That is, once an writer and their friends railroad their self-awarded honor, there's easy no way to challenge it.

Utterly un-Wiki and utterly dishonest.

Q: The Featured Articles passed extensive review checklists. So what's the problem?

A: Good writing can't be legislated.

Q: The writing is community approved. What's better than that?

A: For the best quality, the community at large shouldn't make final decisions about FA. The people I know who write for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' are widely read, highly educated geniuses who are experts in their fields. Those kinds of people should be assessing the worth of Wiki material. Not just anybody who wants to express an opinion.

Q: So only people who are exceptional should be allowed to write for Wiki?

A: Only people who are exceptional should be allowed claim that an article represents Wiki's best.

Q: How should the process be changed?

A: Do as professional publishers do: Have independent editors who have no vested interest in the material make assessments. Probably, the FA reviewers should be anonymous in the sense that their Wiki names are not known.

Q: Who chooses those editors?

A: Other professional editors. Tenured college professors.

Q: What's the advantage?

A: There are three advantages: 1) The quality of FA articles would improve. 2) Writers would get high quality feedback, enabling them become better writers for their next articles. 3) It would be faster. A professional editor can do in minutes what takes the Wiki community days of back-and-forth discussion.