3 ms·

Quoted from the last comment on the article: Wikipedia editing should be done within a set of work processes, which can be semi-automated (a “requested article

by jchrisa 12y ago

Quoted from the last comment on the article: Wikipedia editing should be done within a set of work processes, which can be semi-automated (a “requested article” collects citations, then becomes a draft article, then is promoted to regular article status, with the software preventing duplicate efforts, for example).

_delirium 12y ago
There's sort-of a process like that, but the in-progress articles are still articles, vs. being explicitly marked as drafts or not-yet-articles or something of that sort. The progression is something like this (from needs-most-work upwards): 1. Articles explicitly tagged with a warning at the top (needs references, might be biased, reads like an advertisement, doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject, is out of date, etc.). Here the reader is warned that the article needs work and should be taken with a large grain of salt. 2. Default "regular" articles. These are supposed to be at least passable, free of the obvious problems in the previous category. Though sometimes they just haven't been properly marked. The reader should treat them with appropriate caution, looking for references for claims (especially any surprising claims), corroborating with other sources, and assuming that the article may be incomplete. 3. Articles marked as "good articles" [1]. These have been reviewed by one or more editors, and are considered to be well-referenced and reasonably complete. They're marked by a little green plus in the upper-right. A conservative use of Wikipedia could be to treat anything at a lower level than this one as a draft article, in various stages of draftiness. 4. Articles marked as "featured articles" [2]. These are supposed to be checked by multiple editors, including at least one expert in the field, and considered to be excellent examples of a Wikipedia article, with no obvious deficiencies. They're marked by a gold star in the upper-right. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles
- im3w1l 12y ago
  Anyone can add a {{good article}}. I just did without even logging in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox EDIT: permalink https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=610077870 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox...
- kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
  Slightly related: there's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FlaggedRevs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FlaggedRevs
wpietri 12y ago
As a software developer, I appreciate the urge to systematize processes. But I generally think that's a mistake for Wikipedia. The formalization and top-down control of work processes is an artifact of industrial corporate thinking. It can work adequately in that context (although there are other models, like Toyota's, that I think are superior). But there's very little reason to think it will work in Wikipedia, which has almost nothing in common with industrial corporations.

by jchrisa 12y ago

_delirium 12y ago

There's sort-of a process like that, but the in-progress articles are still articles, vs. being explicitly marked as drafts or not-yet-articles or something of that sort. The progression is something like this (from needs-most-work upwards): 1. Articles explicitly tagged with a warning at the top (needs references, might be biased, reads like an advertisement, doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject, is out of date, etc.). Here the reader is warned that the article needs work and should be taken with a large grain of salt. 2. Default "regular" articles. These are supposed to be at least passable, free of the obvious problems in the previous category. Though sometimes they just haven't been properly marked. The reader should treat them with appropriate caution, looking for references for claims (especially any surprising claims), corroborating with other sources, and assuming that the article may be incomplete. 3. Articles marked as "good articles" [1]. These have been reviewed by one or more editors, and are considered to be well-referenced and reasonably complete. They're marked by a little green plus in the upper-right. A conservative use of Wikipedia could be to treat anything at a lower level than this one as a draft article, in various stages of draftiness. 4. Articles marked as "featured articles" [2]. These are supposed to be checked by multiple editors, including at least one expert in the field, and considered to be excellent examples of a Wikipedia article, with no obvious deficiencies. They're marked by a gold star in the upper-right. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles

im3w1l 12y ago
Anyone can add a {{good article}}. I just did without even logging in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox EDIT: permalink https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=610077870 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox...
kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
Slightly related: there's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FlaggedRevs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FlaggedRevs

wpietri 12y ago

As a software developer, I appreciate the urge to systematize processes. But I generally think that's a mistake for Wikipedia. The formalization and top-down control of work processes is an artifact of industrial corporate thinking. It can work adequately in that context (although there are other models, like Toyota's, that I think are superior). But there's very little reason to think it will work in Wikipedia, which has almost nothing in common with industrial corporations.