Wikipedia has demonstrated to me that a group of loosely organized amateurs can't produce anything close to the quality of disciplined professionals.
If it wasn't for the top 100 articles that largely discuss rock and roll stars and sex, Wikipedia would sink far, far down the Internet ratings.
Don't fool yourself, nothing has been accomplished here except to hamper the spread of knowledge, since a better alternative could have easily be devised. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Dishonesty in Featured Article Selection
Professionally, a writer's work is evaluated by independent editors. Editing removes unnoticed mistakes. It removes poorly written and biased material.
Often Featured Articles in Wikipedia are evaluated and passed by the same people who wrote them. Sometimes by their friends. The evaluation process can happen in a few days, before there's much chance other editors have had time to notice or respond.
This substantially reduces an article's potential quality.
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 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.
I edit, therefore I exist?
Memorable locales
|