Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review
At the beginning of the year, we began a series of interviews with editors who have worked hard to combat systemic bias through the creation of featured content; although we haven't seen six installments yet, we've also had some delightful interviews with people who write articles on some of our most core topics. Now, as we close the year, I would like to present some of my own musings on the state of featured content – especially as it pertains to systemic bias and core topics.
Personally, I only began to get involved in featured content in earnest this year. My first featured picture may have been promoted last year, but the majority of my featured content thus far was promoted in 2012. My first first featured article came in April, with a featured list in June, featured topic in September, and finally a featured portal in October.
_3.jpg){kind=link}
For me, having a work promoted to featured status is the rough equivalent of having it published in a traditional encyclopedia; it is recognition that the article, picture, and the like is up to snuff. As such, although there is personal glory in turning a 300-word stub into a featured article, like at Sudirman, that is not the goal of featured content. By writing, photographing, or recording featured-level content, we are legitimising the crowd-sourcing method used by Wikipedia and showing that the 99 per cent can make a difference. This is not to say that featured content is the only quality content on Wikipedia: numerous articles and images are on par or better than those found in paper encyclopedias, but owing to... let's say human nature... will have a difficult time at the content featured processes.
If compared to traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia's expansive coverage of popular culture is second to none. However, in my experience there are two areas where we fall decidedly behind Britannica or Americana: our coverage of common-knowledge topics and our coverage of areas outside the Anglosphere. As such, our articles on writers or the Masalembu Islands are definitely in need of some tender loving care.
This can be challenging. For broader topics, the scope is typically daunting, and sources need to be chosen very selectively. Even when an editor or group of editors is willing to take on a topic, they may find themselves the target of edit warriors. A drive to improve information technology was derailed by arguments over capitalisation, while tree has been the target of (over)extensive tagging. For more minor topics – especially on non-Anglosphere topics – finding quality English-language sources can be impossible, forcing editors to use sources in the local language. Several of my articles, such as Oerip Soemohardjo, are by necessity almost devoid of English sources as the most in-depth looks were in Indonesian.
It can be done. This year, the Core Contest, which focuses on topics which every encyclopedia should have, ran twice. This resulted in several featured articles, including the above lettuce, as well as major expansions and improvements on topics ranging from language to the Alps. Other editors have taken on major topics more or less on their own, like at entertainment or the aforementioned Douglas MacArthur. For non-Anglophone areas, I have provided some seventeen pieces of featured content related to Indonesia, while editors such as (but not limited to) Lecen, MrPanyGoff, Muhammad Mahdi Karim, Arsenikk and Lemurbaby have worked extensively to bring quality content from their preferred areas.
Will 2013 bring more core and non-Anglophonic featured content, or was the 21st the end of that? Here's looking at you, in the new year.