→Wikicup: note |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Question on stats: per Ealdgyth, leave that up there |
||
Line 1,653: | Line 1,653: | ||
:There are so few opposes these days from *anyone* that I think it would be hard to show anything statistically convincing about them. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
:There are so few opposes these days from *anyone* that I think it would be hard to show anything statistically convincing about them. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
Sarah, I think that the dying use of the oppose button goes beyond, and is not necessarily related to, WikiCup in any way that I can see. And while I immensely appreciate Mike Christie's ongoing attempts to generate real data, I have three problems with his efforts. 1) I have seen in the past that some of his attempts generate data that can't tell the full story, because there are too many conflating factors, items in WIAFA that have changed over time along with adding or losing certain reviewing practices (copyvio checks and Ealdgyth's source reviews) and things that only the Coords know, re what went into certain decisions. 2) Some of his data has been used to draw conclusions which, having sat in the seat of making the decisions, I believe are faulty. 3) I would MUCH rather see Mike's efforts be spent where they can have a real impact, that is, using his skill as a reviewer. I think we have all the data we need to know there is a serious problem we should all be focused on |
Sarah, I think that the dying use of the oppose button goes beyond, and is not necessarily related to, WikiCup in any way that I can see. And while I immensely appreciate Mike Christie's ongoing attempts to generate real data, I have three problems with his efforts. 1) I have seen in the past that some of his attempts generate data that can't tell the full story, because there are too many conflating factors, items in WIAFA that have changed over time along with adding or losing certain reviewing practices (copyvio checks and Ealdgyth's source reviews) and things that only the Coords know, re what went into certain decisions. 2) Some of his data has been used to draw conclusions which, having sat in the seat of making the decisions, I believe are faulty. 3) I would MUCH rather see Mike's efforts be spent where they can have a real impact, that is, using his skill as a reviewer. I think we have all the data we need to know there is a serious problem we should all be focused on. {{pb}} Most of what we need to know is available [[WP:FAS|right here]], augmented by this: |
||
{|class="wikitable sortable" |
{|class="wikitable sortable" |
||
! Year |
! Year |
||
Line 1,776: | Line 1,776: | ||
# We are exhausting the Coordinators. |
# We are exhausting the Coordinators. |
||
Of great concern to many long-term FA participants is that we are seeing that the broader community is noticing that FA is becoming irrelevant. When multiple respected long-term Wikipedians are calling for FA to be abolished, or merged with GA (holy shit!), we should be worried, and we should be paying attention. For everyone who is so upset about any person raising any simple question here, I want to remind you that if FA is abolished or merged away, all of those rewards, icons, prizes or anything having to do with FA also become meaningless |
Of great concern to many long-term FA participants is that we are seeing that the broader community is noticing that FA is becoming irrelevant. When multiple respected long-term Wikipedians are calling for FA to be abolished, or merged with GA (holy shit!), we should be worried, and we should be paying attention. For everyone who is so upset about any person raising any simple question here, I want to remind you that if FA is abolished or merged away, all of those rewards, icons, prizes or anything having to do with FA also become meaningless.{{pb}} My own attempts have been: |
||
# Start using the Oppose button as we used to. The fastest route to a bronze star is a well-formulated oppose, withdraw and fix, come back strong. |
# Start using the Oppose button as we used to. The fastest route to a bronze star is a well-formulated oppose, withdraw and fix, come back strong. |
||
## Along with that, encourage the Coords to shut down opposed FACs faster, so resources can concentrate on the worthy FACs, and nominators can get their issues address faster off-FAC, for a quicker return to FAC. |
## Along with that, encourage the Coords to shut down opposed FACs faster, so resources can concentrate on the worthy FACs, and nominators can get their issues address faster off-FAC, for a quicker return to FAC. |
||
Line 1,783: | Line 1,783: | ||
# Mentor, mentor, mentor. Getting one FA passed is less helpful to than getting a new FA writer on board, who will generate more than one FA. Mushroom effect. |
# Mentor, mentor, mentor. Getting one FA passed is less helpful to than getting a new FA writer on board, who will generate more than one FA. Mushroom effect. |
||
# Review outside your area. Even if you don't want to tackle a medical article, review it for jargon. Even if you can barely stand to go through another ship article, do it for jargon. We need independent review (non-content expert) of every kind of topic. |
# Review outside your area. Even if you don't want to tackle a medical article, review it for jargon. Even if you can barely stand to go through another ship article, do it for jargon. We need independent review (non-content expert) of every kind of topic. |
||
I have made multiple other attempts to deal with several of the "what ails FAC" issue, but my [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given|attempts to get more regulars]] engaged in helping clean out our older, deficient FAs has not soared. So, as long as we have a huge percentage of deficient FAs on the books, we can expect the broader community to no longer hold the bronze star in high regard. If you aren't helping out at FAR, you aren't helping the big picture, which the community is noticing. I have attempted to back the Coords, as I have seen how frightfully nasty this page has become, and that there is little the Coords can do about it when cliques take hold and chase out significantly good reviewers, as the Coords can't take sides. (To me, this is the biggest part of what ails FAC.) {{pb}} So, to conclude, what can each of us do to try to re-invigorate FAC amid community calls from respected Wikipedians to abandon the process as they see we have becoming increasingly irrelevant? I don't know what all we CAN do, but I know that |
I have made multiple other attempts to deal with several of the "what ails FAC" issue, but my [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given|attempts to get more regulars]] engaged in helping clean out our older, deficient FAs has not soared. So, as long as we have a huge percentage of deficient FAs on the books, we can expect the broader community to no longer hold the bronze star in high regard. If you aren't helping out at FAR, you aren't helping the big picture, which the community is noticing. I have attempted to back the Coords, as I have seen how frightfully nasty this page has become, and that there is little the Coords can do about it when cliques take hold and chase out significantly good reviewers, as the Coords can't take sides. (To me, this is the biggest part of what ails FAC.) {{pb}} So, to conclude, what can each of us do to try to re-invigorate FAC amid community calls from respected Wikipedians to abandon the process as they see we have becoming increasingly irrelevant? I don't know what all we CAN do, but I know that your star will mean nothing if there is no more FAC. Regards (anyone authorized to fix any of my gazillion typos up there), [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
My first suggestion, in this vein, is that we used to do this: [[Template:FCDW]]-- only one example of the kinds of initiative to keep the overall process working, that came from the leader that FAC decided to fire. We should re-initiate a FA newsletter, ala Dispatches. It could be monthly, and would include Mike's reviewing stats, for example, along with overall stats and helpful tidbits for new and ongoing participants. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
My first suggestion, in this vein, is that we used to do this: [[Template:FCDW]]-- only one example of the kinds of initiative to keep the overall process working, that came from the leader that FAC decided to fire. We should re-initiate a FA newsletter, ala Dispatches. It could be monthly, and would include Mike's reviewing stats, for example, along with overall stats and helpful tidbits for new and ongoing participants. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:47, 16 October 2020
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 (April Fools 2005)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Image/source check requests
FAC mentoring: first-time nominators
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC source reviews
For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.
RfC about deprecating parenthetical citations
There is an RfC at the village pump about deprecating parenthetical citations which may interest watchers of this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Since we have FAs with parenthetical citations, I hope people here will look in ... don't want to see FAR taken over by FAs that become out of compliance because their writers were unaware of the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Note that the RfC has been closed with a finding of consensus to deprecate parenthetical citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have no interest in sending FAs to FAR because Wikipedia moved the goalposts ... anyone else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me from the close that we'd need to do so. The closer made a change to WP:PAREN stating that "While some existing articles may still use this form of citation, new articles should not be created with it". Is this a grandfather clause? This will need further discussion at WT:CITE to determine how exactly this is adopted, since no specific wording change was part of the proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would take it as a grandfather clause --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Me too. The Wikipedia:Featured article criteria specifically permits parenthetical citations, and WP:CITEVAR still prohibits changing articles using it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would take it as a grandfather clause --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me from the close that we'd need to do so. The closer made a change to WP:PAREN stating that "While some existing articles may still use this form of citation, new articles should not be created with it". Is this a grandfather clause? This will need further discussion at WT:CITE to determine how exactly this is adopted, since no specific wording change was part of the proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: Could you formally tell whether the RfC decision affects the issues raised above regarding featured articles? It's not clear. T8612 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- FAs weren't much discussed there at all, and I would not want to try to divine a consensus out of something that wasn't really talked about. So I would say what to do as far as FAs go is up to consensus here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like we may need to adjust the wording at WP:WIAFA along the lines of a grandfather clause for older FAS and wrt CITEVAR for existing articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I should clear up something from the above though. The consensus at the discussion was not just for stopping use in new articles but not to change it in prior ones. It is not a "grandfather clause", just an explanation of why some remaining articles may still have it—this change may take a very long time to implement, and that's okay. But it certainly does not mean that an article should remain with these citations indefinitely even once an editor is prepared to do the work of making the change. Like any deprecation cycle, "deprecated" does not mean "gone tomorrow", but it does mean "gone eventually". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like we need to somehow reflect that we wouldn’t send an FA to FAR only for parenthetical citations, but neither would we promote a new FA with parenthetical citations ...tricky to word that at WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- (Disclaimer: I did support deprecation) Perhaps we should say that if deprecated citation styles are to be removed from a FA, it should ideally not have to go through FAR as a standard formatting change like that is not really grounds for a full-fledged FAR? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe 1c should be something like
... using
and leave the heavy lifting to the guideline in question. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)eitherfootnotes (e.g. <ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>)or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references....
- It seems like we need to somehow reflect that we wouldn’t send an FA to FAR only for parenthetical citations, but neither would we promote a new FA with parenthetical citations ...tricky to word that at WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I should clear up something from the above though. The consensus at the discussion was not just for stopping use in new articles but not to change it in prior ones. It is not a "grandfather clause", just an explanation of why some remaining articles may still have it—this change may take a very long time to implement, and that's okay. But it certainly does not mean that an article should remain with these citations indefinitely even once an editor is prepared to do the work of making the change. Like any deprecation cycle, "deprecated" does not mean "gone tomorrow", but it does mean "gone eventually". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like we may need to adjust the wording at WP:WIAFA along the lines of a grandfather clause for older FAS and wrt CITEVAR for existing articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- FAs weren't much discussed there at all, and I would not want to try to divine a consensus out of something that wasn't really talked about. So I would say what to do as far as FAs go is up to consensus here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just want to voice general support that FAs with this style should be cleaned up rather than go to FAR, but this is part of the process already as part of required step 1: issues are voiced on the talk page and sorted to see if there is a significant issue with the article in question. (I would not treat this as a significant issue unless there was some resistance; in most cases, the change is a simple text cut and paste with added <ref> or conversion to {{sfn}} or similar.) --Izno (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agree it should not require a trip to FAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Disallow parentheticals in FA criteria, as they are now deprecated by community consensus. I think Izno's proposal is better + more succinct than the proposal below. Agree with JJ + Izno that simple formatting deficiencies, on their own, should be fixed rather than going to FAR. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for criterion 2c
Parenthetical citations were deprecated in a September 2020 RFC, with "no rush" to convert existing parenthetical citations. There is traction above that existing parenthetical citations in FAs may eventually be converted, but the use of them should not be a sole reason for sending older FAs with existing parenthetical citations to WP:FAR.
Accordingly, point 2c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria needs adjustment.
Current Crit. 2c | Proposed Crit. 2c |
---|---|
Discussion of proposal for crit 2c adjustment
Getting the ball rolling on this, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I thought we were going to accept ("grandfather") parenthetical citations in older articles. But now we are saying that they must be changed in new FACs, TFAs and FARs? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- No ???? I am not understanding your post. Seraphimblade (the closing admin) explained above that the close should not be considered a "grandfather clause", rather that there is no rush to convert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I think the suggested wording words well: parenthetical citations are something that should be updated in articles where possible, and if an article that has other issues goes through FAR, then they need to be updated at that point, but if the article is otherwise in good shape, then parenthetical citations should not be enough on their own to send an article to FAR. Harrias talk 07:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Poke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Editnotice
Query about a template I found whilst cleaning out the general purpose editnotices. Template:Featured article candidates/editintro is an old template which states it's the editnotice when editing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Although, it's not actually used for the editnotice there (this is), or anywhere else, at present. Wondering if you folks want to keep/use that template in some way, or should it just be deleted / marked as obsolete? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, I believe that's the editnotice that shows up when you create a new featured article nomination. You can see it by going partway through the featured article nomination process, and clicking on the link on the article talk page that says "Initiate nomination". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, ah, thanks! I've updated the template's doc to that effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics for September 2020
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Note that "<none>" is a marker meaning "No one reviewed this FAC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Reviewers for September 2020
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Supports and opposes for September 2020
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- SarahSV spotted a mistake in the oppose count, so I've updated the table; there were four opposes last month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion re moving the bronze star
This discussion relevant to moving the bronze star from the upper right to next to the article name is ongoing and seems to be getting support. I did not see many FAC regulars there so I thought I would mention it here and provide a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
What is reliable source?
Hello all. I don't know whether this is right place for this question. But, since my question is directly related to my FA nomination, I am asking this here.
My question is: If the source has been published by Oxford University Press, we can consider that it is a reliable source regardless of its author. Right ? --Gazal world (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts for examples. An OUP published book by an author about themselves would be an obvious prime example. But, generally speaking, yes, OUP books would probably be reliable. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is also worth adding that the Featured article criteria require "high-quality reliable sources", not just simply reliable sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Harrias; I could dig up medical examples from Oxford University Press that are decidedly bad for any article, much less an FA. (Menstrual psychosis, not a thing, redirected to Ian Brockington.) Context-dependent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, If you're referring to The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing, that is a Cambridge UP, not Oxford UP, book.[2] (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I was referring to Brockington IF (1996). Motherhood and Mental Health. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192629357. It's not clear to me why Brockington was able to get these crazy ideas published. It's a one-man show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, If you're referring to The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing, that is a Cambridge UP, not Oxford UP, book.[2] (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some would say it depends on which bit of OUP too - the American branch is perhaps not quite the guarantee of quality the English one is, & some of the output of OUP India reflects local standards & prejudices. Then again lots of stuff more than say 50 years old will be unreliable, from all branches. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Harrias; I could dig up medical examples from Oxford University Press that are decidedly bad for any article, much less an FA. (Menstrual psychosis, not a thing, redirected to Ian Brockington.) Context-dependent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- OUP is normally a highly reliable source but as stated above there may be exceptions: use common sense. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to all for answering my question. --Gazal world (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Renomination of Biblical criticism
I would like to renominate Biblical criticism for featured article. It was nominated two years ago this month, [3] but I was unable to complete the process. (If you care why, just ask.) I left WP for a year and a half, but have returned.
Does this qualify as my first step? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- No special action or permission is needed; you can just renominate it whenever you feel it's ready. There are some rules about nominating (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC) but none of them apply here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- As Mike says, you can nominate anytime, but you might want to have at look at the advice section at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. For example, I see problems in the section headings with “The”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay then, 'The' is gone. To heck with the! It is now nominated--I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Perhaps reading my essay would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay then, 'The' is gone. To heck with the! It is now nominated--I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Request for mentor
I guess I should ask for a mentor as Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey would be my first attempt at a FA, and I don't understand why my attempt a while ago to get another article approved as a featured list failed (perhaps it just ran out of time). No subject knowledge is needed as I would like it to be easily understandable by a high school graduate if possible. Also I wonder if it could become a model for anyone else who wishes to improve the more important Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have time for a mentorship at the moment, but I see a number of issues remaining after the recent peer review. I realize this is a strange request, since you just had a poorly attended peer review, but if you will open another peer review (and remember to ping me to it, and pester me if I forget), I can weigh in with notes as I have time, and perhaps others will as well. A peer review provides a structured place for multiple editors to work through an article pre-FAC, and is a sadly unused process of late! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Please join in! I will weigh in later at Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2, which allows for multiple-mentorship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikicup
So, what became of the requirement to disclose Wikicup participation? We have a lot of nominations up that have no declaration that the nominators are Wikicup participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Disqualify the whole lot of 'em! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of a review that doesn't specify the cup participation? I always try to get it on there (I even use a boilerplate message to do so). Bare in mind Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring only mentions reviews as requiring declaration, and not nominations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not talking about reviews: I'm talking about nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, if there is any requirement for the nominators of an FAC to declare at any point that if it were to be promoted points may be gained in the WikiCup then we WikiCup competitors are collectively oblivious to it. Could you point it out for the hard of thinking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I thought that was the idea when we discussed it way back when ... that Wikicup participation should be declared at FAC. I did not interpret that we were restricting it to reviews, and thought that all Wikicup participation was always declared historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly not part of the current ruleset. I'm not really sure what it really changes to be honest - are we suggesting that the FA noms by those in the cup are to be reviewed/treated differently? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. A FAC is a FAC whether it's for a competition or not. It should be dealt with in exactly the same way regardless. What possible interest is there in a FAC nominator having to state that a nomination may or may not be part of WikiCup? This looks like a trivially frivolous issue, if an issue at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Back in 2011, the rules stated that "You must declare your WikiCup participation in any FAC nomination statement or if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." The following year, this was removed, but that was a note that: "A bot will now make explicit that you're in the WikiCup when nominating something at FAC." From 2012 to 2017 (inclusive) the rules only stated that "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." Now it is only stated that a declaration should be made when reviewing an article: "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review.". Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, if I am understanding correctly, because a bot stopped working (or never worked), we ended up relaxing a long-standing convention at FAC, where ALL potential conflicts or prior involvement are expected to be declared at FAC (eg, I was involved at the peer review, I was involved at the GAN, I am the second highest editor on this article, I am involved in a reward contest, whatever)? And that quid pro quo reviewing was eschewed and discouraged? That has always been the expectation to my knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- A reviewer can review every article at FAC if they want to, whereas a nominator can nominate at most two articles at a time. The Wikicup comes into play only if you wish to influence when a FAC nomination is processed so it appears in a round when you need the points. I'm sure the coordinator would oblige by delaying the promotion of an article, but I'm yet to see that occur. NB: I don't know what bot adds a note about the nomination. It isn't the FACBot. If the coordinators wish, I can have the FACBot add an appropriate template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I am saying that as first time competitor I have stuck to the rules as they are written and that I dislike the implication that by not being aware of a rule that has, for whatever reason, not in been in effect this year I may have somehow gained an unfair advantage. I would thank you to reread and rethink your previous comment.
- I would also suggest that the WikiCup talk page would be a better venue for a discussion of its rules, or perceived lack thereof. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- What Gog said, but also: this is a waste of time. FAC nominators are trying to make FAs. Worrying about their motives to do so is a waste of time if the review process is functional. FAC nominators have no control over what happens next. Next perennial/trivial issue please. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gog, I regret that you feel that I have implied anything; please read what I have written, not what you may think I have written, and please don't put a shoe on if it doesn't fit. The question/concern is, has the long-standing convention of giving the Coords certain disclaimers been discontinued at FAC. In the interest of the integrity of FAC, the Coords need to have full information about any involvement on any nomination. It is up to them how they choose to weigh that information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bizarre. I have a few FACs and it just happens that I'm in the WikiCup. There's no special dispensation required. I expect no special treatment. I want my FAs to be FAs, regardless of any parallel endeavours. How does a WikiCup FAC nomination jeopardise the integrity of FAC if all checks and measures usually applied are in place? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- More or less what TRM said. I believe the reasoning behind asking reviewers to acknowledge their participation is that it's quite possible for editors to conduct slapdash reviews in a search for quick points. FAC coords and other reviewers may therefore need information about Wikicup participation. However, the FAC process itself is supposed to be a check against nominated articles being thrown together in a hurry, and if the nominator acknowledging their participatin is going to change the scrutiny that their nomination receives, that does not strike me as a positive thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, if I am understanding correctly, because a bot stopped working (or never worked), we ended up relaxing a long-standing convention at FAC, where ALL potential conflicts or prior involvement are expected to be declared at FAC (eg, I was involved at the peer review, I was involved at the GAN, I am the second highest editor on this article, I am involved in a reward contest, whatever)? And that quid pro quo reviewing was eschewed and discouraged? That has always been the expectation to my knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Back in 2011, the rules stated that "You must declare your WikiCup participation in any FAC nomination statement or if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." The following year, this was removed, but that was a note that: "A bot will now make explicit that you're in the WikiCup when nominating something at FAC." From 2012 to 2017 (inclusive) the rules only stated that "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." Now it is only stated that a declaration should be made when reviewing an article: "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review.". Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. A FAC is a FAC whether it's for a competition or not. It should be dealt with in exactly the same way regardless. What possible interest is there in a FAC nominator having to state that a nomination may or may not be part of WikiCup? This looks like a trivially frivolous issue, if an issue at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly not part of the current ruleset. I'm not really sure what it really changes to be honest - are we suggesting that the FA noms by those in the cup are to be reviewed/treated differently? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I thought that was the idea when we discussed it way back when ... that Wikicup participation should be declared at FAC. I did not interpret that we were restricting it to reviews, and thought that all Wikicup participation was always declared historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, if there is any requirement for the nominators of an FAC to declare at any point that if it were to be promoted points may be gained in the WikiCup then we WikiCup competitors are collectively oblivious to it. Could you point it out for the hard of thinking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not talking about reviews: I'm talking about nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of a review that doesn't specify the cup participation? I always try to get it on there (I even use a boilerplate message to do so). Bare in mind Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring only mentions reviews as requiring declaration, and not nominations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Not you Vanamonde, but I've long suspected that editors have all too often nominated slapdash, cookie-cutter, articles at FAC in order to win their points at Wikicup in a timely fashion. I have also long suspected that they expect the community to do for them by way of timely actionable comments what they should have done in the first place. If they acknowledged this upfront, someone like me would be doubly cagey in approaching such an article, and, all things being equal, be more likely than before to walk away. If others felt the same way, these nominations would—by a collective lack of interest—receive an automatic grade. Life would become much simpler for the reviewers; for those who have made the rushing and pressing demands, an object lesson will await. All too often though it is the other way round. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- No-one's rushing anyone. The candidates are just following their natural course, WikiCup or nay. This is a fruitless conversation and seemingly an opportunity to just bandwagon with sly digs. Completely unproductive. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Inconvenient is not fruitless. Reviewers have a duty of care (in a figurative sense) to all articles, the hackneyed, and the commonly overlooked. When the hackneyed abound, making a rolling stop at FAC en route to Wikicup, they crowd out overlooked, they drive out the faltering, even the uncommonly original. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't follow that at all. If you think there are FACs which should be failed, then you should do something about it. Attempting to curtail people from nominating FACs simply because the subject matter doesn't appeal to you personally is nonsensical, crass and spiteful. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Nonsense. I have never known nominations from Wikicup participants get anywhere close to "crowd(ing) out". Most often there has only been one or two at a time. When I was a co-ordinator, such declarations never affected my judgement, one way or the other. Graham Beards (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Quite frankly fowler&fowler, I have seen a significant amount of comments from you suggesting that some FACs are less worthy than others, merely because the subject matter doesn't suit you. Commonly suggesting that articles that have a similarity to them are "cookie-cutter" and thus, somehow inferior to those on different topics. Somehow certain topics should never be deemed some of Wikipedia's best work because of the subject matter - and in this case that someone participating in a competition to improve content should have that content significantly more critiqued. I've heard a lot about what the coordinators should feel, but I'd rather hear from our actual coordinators on the topic.
- However, this is not currently a part of the rules for the wikicup (we don't have anything like this for GAs, etc), so we should really have this conversation at the wikicup rules talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Inconvenient is not fruitless. Reviewers have a duty of care (in a figurative sense) to all articles, the hackneyed, and the commonly overlooked. When the hackneyed abound, making a rolling stop at FAC en route to Wikicup, they crowd out overlooked, they drive out the faltering, even the uncommonly original. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rather than arguing endlessly about this, it would appear to make sense to just reinstate the rule that was agreed upon - for WikiCup noms as well as reviews to explicitly declare themselves. And Lee Vilenski with all due respect this is not a matter of WikiCup rules but FAC rules, and the problems that might arise from editors coming here with motivations other than the pure desire to see featured content on the project. Thus it's correct to have the conversation here. While I've no doubt that everyone is behaving honourably in practice, it is theoretically possible say for a few WikiCup participants to "gang up" on other contestants by one nominating an article while others provide cheap and less-than-thorough reviews. So as a courtesy to regulars at FAC who don't do WikiCup, just declare your participation when you make such a nom or review, over and done with in 10 seconds, and we can move on from this rather pointless argument. — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think Fowler&fowler has somewhat derailed the original discussion. Of course people could (and should) note WikiCup nominations if that's a rule, but the corollary claims by the aforementioned are unnecessary, offensive and untrue. Suggest this is closed with the conclusion that "rules are rules" no matter what and should be adhered to. Giving the other aspect of this "discussion" any more oxygen is utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and incidentally I just re-read F&F's points above after posting my comment and was about to follow up with a WP:TROUT of my own, because the attitude that WikiCup nominations are somehow inferior to others and should be ignored is clearly bogus as well. I'm not sure what's meant by "cookie-cutter articles", but if that's a reference to the ongoing effort to bring all the play-off final articles - which of course all follow broadly the same format as each other - then that's very wrong, because getting those articles whipped into shape is a very worthwhile project. — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- And Lee's snooker articles as well are no doubt held in equal disdain (or perhaps not quite so as it's by far the gentleman's sport I suppose). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and incidentally I just re-read F&F's points above after posting my comment and was about to follow up with a WP:TROUT of my own, because the attitude that WikiCup nominations are somehow inferior to others and should be ignored is clearly bogus as well. I'm not sure what's meant by "cookie-cutter articles", but if that's a reference to the ongoing effort to bring all the play-off final articles - which of course all follow broadly the same format as each other - then that's very wrong, because getting those articles whipped into shape is a very worthwhile project. — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think Fowler&fowler has somewhat derailed the original discussion. Of course people could (and should) note WikiCup nominations if that's a rule, but the corollary claims by the aforementioned are unnecessary, offensive and untrue. Suggest this is closed with the conclusion that "rules are rules" no matter what and should be adhered to. Giving the other aspect of this "discussion" any more oxygen is utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- >>"Attempting to curtail people from nominating FACs simply because the subject matter doesn't appeal to you personally is nonsensical, crass and spiteful." Huh? Who is saying that? I am saying only: lay your cards on the table in order to help me make a more informed decision—on whether or not to ignore the article at FAC—in the least amount of time. Cookie-cutter is not slapdash, otherwise, two adjectives would not be needed, but the cookie cutters do diminish diversity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Whether you meant it or not, your tone is dismissive of such efforts. Insultingly so. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on what SandyGeorgia said above: "we ended up relaxing a long-standing convention at FAC, where ALL potential conflicts or prior involvement are expected to be declared at FAC", and the comment by Amakuru I would suggest that if there is consensus for declarations of interest to be made, we should implement a FAC rule, not convention, stating something along the lines of:
All potential conflicts of interest, by both nominators and reviewers, are expected to be declared at FAC.
- Nominators should include such a declaration in their nomination statement. This includes involvement in the WP:WIKICUP.
- Reviewers should include the statement at the start of their review. This includes involvement in previous reviews at WP:GA or WP:PR (or other forum), significant input on the article, or involvement in the WP:WIKICUP.
Thoughts? Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Harrias. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It seems a bit moot to have this be effective for this year's competition now, as any new nomination would have next to no chance of closing before the end of the competition. Quite happy to add this to any nom I have open, however. I suggest it does need adding to the wikicup rules, as I've never known this rule to exist. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski, note that my suggestion is to add it to the FAC rules, rather than the WikiCup rules, as that way it covers all declarations: the WikiCup rules could then be amended to highlight this requirement. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, that's no issue, so long as it is mentioned on the wikicup scoring as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski, note that my suggestion is to add it to the FAC rules, rather than the WikiCup rules, as that way it covers all declarations: the WikiCup rules could then be amended to highlight this requirement. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Sounds reasonable and fair to me. And rest assured, I won't be treating such noms be differently, but it's nice to know. It might be worth considering for GA, DYK and ITN as well. — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
FWIW my stance on this is the same as stated by Graham Beards. A nomination or a review being for wikicup points has no bearing on how I look at it. It stands on its own merit. Yes there is a scholarly debate to be had about how gamification potentially drives undesirable behavior but this isn't the venue. The "rule" was probably made to address a historical incident of eager participants crashing into FAC with unprepared nominations. Personally I'd rather educate, if that's the case. And I'd rather reserve the cognitive energy for conflicts of interest like paid editing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It is surprising that we find ourselves in a position where this should even need to be stated, but it appears that we are. It is not necessary to entertain the hypothetical problems raised above by Hawkeye7 (timing of promotions—although timing of archives is also a concern) or Vanamonde (slapdash reviews); the number of ways Coord decisions, and the integrity of FAC, can be affected by failures to disclose any conflicts or prior involvement are numerous.
Unlike both Graham and Laser, I have experienced instances where disclosures mattered. I will give some examples (there are more) of where such occurred during my tenure, so that we can make general decisions (non-specific to WikiCup), keeping history in mind. The Coords do not ONLY decide whether to archive or promote: they also have to take timing considerations into account, and whether a given nomination has received ample independent review as compared to review by only a group that commonly reviews certain kinds of topics. Example, I would hesitate to promote a MILHIST article that hasn't been reviewed by a non-MILHIST editor .. ditto for medical, art, etc. Another example: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1. Fortunately, the editor who archived that discussion understood that one WikiProject should not be allowed to overwhelm FAC. Third example. I had to be aware of issues impacting timing during the period when FAC was overrun by nominations from the first-ever student-editing program. During those nominations, pretty much every serious FAC regular participant was over helping those student articles get promoted, for months at a time, and other FACs suffered as a result. (As an aside, it is unfortunate that not one of those students has stayed engaged with Wikipedia, and we are now seeing those FAs fall into disrepair and be demoted. This bears out my concern then that the business of FAC was being impacted by one group draining resources, as I watched other nominations suffer.) We unequivocably expected those nominations to disclose they were part of a group effort. As delegate, I was aware that I had to allow extra time for other nominations, because FAC reviewers had been disproportionately focused on those nominations.
I cannot see any reason why any good-faith nominator should be concerned about declaring prior involvement, or any other COI, either as a nominator or as a reviewer, because situations such as the three I raise do exist, and we can only guess how many other scenarios there are that could have an impact.
There are other differences between earlier (busier) years at FAC and now. The first issue is that the enormous difference here between Graham's tenure, my tenure, and now is that MOST FACs are now not getting enough reviewer engagement, and some worthy articles are being archived because of that. The Coords can only decide if a worthy nomination should not be archived due to lack of review if they can observe overall trends (which articles are getting reviews vs which are not, and what might be impacting that). The second issue is that some presumption that an article is automatically promoted on only three supports has taken hold (related to the lack of reviewer problem). If an article has not received independent review, that affects the integrity of FAC; the nomination may need to stay open longer for independent review. Third, we are short of reviewers. I won't (knowingly) review one WIKICUP nom unless I feel I have time to similarly review the other WikiCup noms on the page, because doing so would grant an either advantage or disadvantage to which one I chose to review. So I avoid them all. That some reviewers won't engage contest articles will impact integrity, some kinds of articles are easier to review than others, and could also cause some worthy nominations to be archived due to lack of review.
Harrias, thank you for bringing forward a sensible reminder. I would shorten it to:
- Support: All
potentialconflicts of interest, by both nominators and reviewers, are expected to be declared at FAC, including but not limited to previous reviews at other processes like GAN or peer review, significant input on the article, or involvement in contests such as WikiCup. Nominators should include such a declaration in their nomination statement and reviewers should include a statement at the start of their review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Struck potential per Sarah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- support - I think the above is fair. Do we have any other examples of things that might need to be considered for COI other than the obvious? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- One thing that we used to see often—but we rarely see anymore—is "I consider myself a Wikifriend of the nominator". I think that has probably fallen by the wayside logically as the number of FA participants has dwindled. When you have 15 years working with this small group of editors, we all become Wikifriends. The other side of the coin (I have been in prior disputes with) I think is typically declared, as it is kind of a Wiki-wide practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- What constitutes a "wikifriend"? Is that conversing amiably (e.g. I have had regular conversation over the years with RexxS but I can't recall working on anything with them)? Is it working together on multiple FACs (e.g. I like to work with Dweller with whom I share many common interests, but also with whom I have a strong sporting rivalry so it's like the inverse of a COI because we consistently check each other's neutrality)? What does that even mean? Do we thus need to confirm that we may have fallen out with people whose articles we review, just in case those reviews are considered over-critical? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you both. I consider most of the names in this thread to be at least Wikiacquaintances (!). I think there's so few of us these days that the declaration no longer has any utility, and we're knowledgable enough and care enough about the standards that it won't affect our judgement. As TRM says, if I can cooperate with developing this distasteful moustache to FA, you're probably OK with my bias. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, it has fallen by the wayside logically, so is moot. TRM, perhaps you could let your interpretation of some things go now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- In what sense? You brought up a potential COI with "wikifriends". That was your interpretation of COI. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. I brought up things that we used to regularly do that no longer make sense. And I explained that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- And yet you advocate for a woolly "COI clause" which probably should include your version of "wikifriends"? Not workable. Sorry Sandy, this proposal is a dead duck. Undefined, unworkable and unenforceable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, I did no such thing. Could you stop being cranky now over a simple request for a lost but now found bot? It was not my proposal, and if you want to personalize it to me, you should at least read what I wrote, not whatever shoe you decided wear. You may have the last word; I am not exposing the rest of FAC to this anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not cranky at all. You moved your own goalposts. It started with just WikiCup people stating they'd made nominations and descended into "lax reviews". It's a real shame you had to do that. You provided literally no evidence of any real problem. It's really embarrassing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Either Harrias's original, or SG's draft. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support, but without the word "potential". A potential COI is when you would have a COI if you were to work in a certain area. An actual COI is when you do that work, so it should read "All conflicts of interest, by both nominators and reviewers ..." SarahSV (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose<it needs to be specific. I am a serious contributor and I take FAC seriously and I am also in the WikiCup. I would certainly not believe that I had any "conflict of interest" when nominating my next FACs. I seek no special treatment, indeed, my FACs are niche and so are overlooked, hardly optimal for winning a contest that ends in two or so weeks. Harrias' wording was superior, it made it plainer what constitutes a COI. As far as I'm concerned, this is all alarmist and not an actual problem, indeed a solution looking for an actual problem, but I concede that I may be the only FAC nominator in WikiCup trying to improve Wikipedia (that's clearly not true). Still, nice to waste a whole heap of time on it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now "potential" has gone, this is alright. I still firmly believe it's overkill but hey, YMMV. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Restoring opposition, this is unenforceable and is a huge requirement creep. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- But I think part of your point still applies. What if we made it instead ... 'Other factors and conflicts of interest ... because you are correct that participating in a contest is not a COI per se. The problem in that case could be who reviews your contest entry and how, and which other noms they don't review, but YOU don't have the COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also have a question relating to Preity Zinta. Does "involvement in a Wikiproject" mean a conflict of interest? I mean, this is getting seriously into creep-land. What is being declared as a COI here is somewhat subjective. We can't enforce this. And as for "who reviews my FACs", I have no control over that, but ironically we're often encouraged to get people from related WikiProjects to contribute. An inherent COI.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to go excessively CREEPy and spell that out, but let's look at a medical example, because most of us are careful to explain from what point we are reviewing (eg, as a physician, layperson, etc), which is more relevant than whether we belong to the Medicine project (I am not officially listed as a member there, because of That Other Thing). The Coords need to be assured that topic experts have had a look in the case of medicine, and we think we have that covered, intuitively. What I meant about Preity Zinta was that all the Indian editors came streaming in to pile-on support; that was verifiable then by checking the project member list. So, no, I don't think we need to declare WP membership and go so far as to spell that out. And I think the Coords know which editors are MILHIST because they are so prolific, ditto for the art cabal. There may be other areas where it is less clear, but the Coords are likely to know it when they see it ... that is, only sports editors reviewing sports articles, and then a jargon check will be needed. Perhaps someone has other examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, so it's the coords job to check this, not the reviewers' job to declare it. It's not enforceable unless the last gate checks it and that's the promoting coord. Are we going to start handing out FAC bans to people who don't declare this subjective COI? How does it work in practice unless the coord does this job? I am fully behind the idea of transparency (and that has absolutely nothing to do with WikiCup) but this should just apply to every single nominator and every single reviewer, and as such a declaration of a COI, perceived or otherwise, is really a waste of time. What you're noting here is just the regular play at FAC, most articles are niche, we don't get water or air nominated too often, so by its very nature, many people reviewing will have a COI by virtue of being interested in promoting a topic in which they are inherently interested. In my mind, this has now become too vague, too subjective, and enforceable, i.e. a waste of time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the list of examples included so far. I think where I stand on FAC bans is clear ... they are detrimental to FAC ... and don't think that is a factor here at all. If someone forgets a declaration, someone else adds it, no problem. The reason we don't have a problem, for example, in medical, is I do and advise others to lay out in their nomination statement which other medical editors have reviewed, as well as which laypeople have reviewed. This just saves time for the Coords. MILHIST is our biggest nominator. If they decide to do similar, they can, but I hope the Coords know when a jargon check is needed in any area, and I hope they are watching for that in all nominations. We can save them time by laying that out in the nom statement, but it's not required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Yes, so it's the coords job to check this, not the reviewers' job to declare it." so you're in favor of making the coord's job to check through things rather than the people who know they might have some issue declare it up front so the coords job isn't quite so hard? Gee, thanks for thinking I have unlimited time to devote to hunting for things... --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- That you are "hunting for" these things is good news! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Well you know the irony of this, right now you're (probably) assuming good faith on the nominators and the reviewers. If each one has to declare a COI, your job gets harder because you can no longer assume good faith, you have to assume there's some kind of nefarious backdoor FAC cheating going on and scrutinise things in even more detail. It's a common issue, something I deal with in my professional life, where we deploy AI to "make lives easier" but in actuality they can easily make more work by identifying things that a human would just naturally overlook. I would never assume the coords have infinite time on their hands, but this additional level of bureaucracy just makes it harder for you. One obvious side effect of this proposed change is going to be turning off reviewers, so FAC will become even more stagnant than it already is. Sub-optimal. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, upon reflection, to enforce this properly, coords would have to assume that every reviewer and nominator had a COI, declared or otherwise (because as Sandy notes above, there's no real way to enforce such declarations, and there are exceptions apparently, such as Wikiproject membership). Thus every reviewer's contributors and interactions with nominators would need to be checked before it could be safely assumed that the review/nomination was made in good faith and without some kind of attempt to game the system. It's either that, or we maintain the status quo where we trust coords to do their (continually fantastic) job and judge reviews and nominations on their merits. There shouldn't be a woolly in-between version because that in itself will undermine the whole FAC process and reduce engagement. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a bit of hyperbole. It is the Coords' job to make sure that WIAFA is met. In that vein, they make sure that an image review has been conducted, a source review, a prose review, etc. And they have to make sure that articles are independently reviewed for things like jargon and comprehensibility to the layperson. By giving them as much info as we can up front, all we are doing is saving them time on things they have to do anyway. There is no AGF here; it's them having the info to check for the things they are required to check for. Perhaps you weren't aware they were having to do all of this work; I was, because it did for six hours a day, almost every day. As to "turning off reviewers"; I'm a reviewer who is turning off by seeing this slide and reviews becoming increasingly too lax, so there are two sides to that coin. The better FA integrity is perserved, the more likely we are to have reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not really. If a reviewer said "I have a COI because I worked with this editor before", what difference does that make to the coord? What would they do differently? They'd have to take it into account. If you're saying this work is already being done, then it underpins my assertion that the requirement for a statement of COI (perceived or otherwise) is completely nugatory. And adding further bells and whistles to an already arcane process would serve to reduce membership even further. Who wants to decide if they believe they have a COI? We don't even really know what that means in this context. If a coord can assess WIAFA, it doesn't matter what the nominator or the reviewers are up to to FAC in any sense at all! And in response to "seeing this slide", seeing what slide? Where's the evidence that this is an actual issue? You've just said you've done this kind of checking forever. This changes nothing other than to add additional (uncertain) burden on reviewers, nominators and coords, with no discernible increase in FA quality. If we had a spate of FAs promoted through some kind of nefarious "boy's club" backdoor COI, I'd buy it. Do we have that? No, because our coords do a brilliant job. Adding this in just makes their job harder and reduces the likelihood of people wanting to get involved in an already overly bureaucratic and interminable process. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are a lot of straw men creeping into this page; why would a reviewer say "I have a COI because I worked with this editor before"? Where is that part of this proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- You mentioned "wikifriends" earlier, remember? Anyway, that's a red herring. It avoids the matter in hand. This is a requirement creep which would be entirely detrimental at every part of the FAC process and has absolutely no evidential improvement at all. Or at least, not one single person has provided any statistics on FAs which have been promoted prematurely as a result of overlooked COI. Bring the evidence and we can have a serious debate on the utility of such a nebulous and subjective concept. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. "reviews becoming increasingly too lax" can you demonstrate any reviews which were too lax that the coords accepted at face value? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I can demonstrate lax reviews (I don't read the Coords mind as to how they interpret them, but that was never the point). That doesn't mean I will. Whether straw men, red herrings, or other aggressions on this page, the extent to which a simple question about a long-standing practice at FAC was distorted is fishy and unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- You miss the point. If the coords have accepted reviews in the past which you deem inadequate, and as a result there are FAs out there which shouldn't be FAs, it's incumbent on you and others to call them out. The complete lack of evidence of malfeasance presented here is testimony to the fact that this is a solution looking for a problem and requirement creep in extremis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I can demonstrate lax reviews (I don't read the Coords mind as to how they interpret them, but that was never the point). That doesn't mean I will. Whether straw men, red herrings, or other aggressions on this page, the extent to which a simple question about a long-standing practice at FAC was distorted is fishy and unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are a lot of straw men creeping into this page; why would a reviewer say "I have a COI because I worked with this editor before"? Where is that part of this proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not really. If a reviewer said "I have a COI because I worked with this editor before", what difference does that make to the coord? What would they do differently? They'd have to take it into account. If you're saying this work is already being done, then it underpins my assertion that the requirement for a statement of COI (perceived or otherwise) is completely nugatory. And adding further bells and whistles to an already arcane process would serve to reduce membership even further. Who wants to decide if they believe they have a COI? We don't even really know what that means in this context. If a coord can assess WIAFA, it doesn't matter what the nominator or the reviewers are up to to FAC in any sense at all! And in response to "seeing this slide", seeing what slide? Where's the evidence that this is an actual issue? You've just said you've done this kind of checking forever. This changes nothing other than to add additional (uncertain) burden on reviewers, nominators and coords, with no discernible increase in FA quality. If we had a spate of FAs promoted through some kind of nefarious "boy's club" backdoor COI, I'd buy it. Do we have that? No, because our coords do a brilliant job. Adding this in just makes their job harder and reduces the likelihood of people wanting to get involved in an already overly bureaucratic and interminable process. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a bit of hyperbole. It is the Coords' job to make sure that WIAFA is met. In that vein, they make sure that an image review has been conducted, a source review, a prose review, etc. And they have to make sure that articles are independently reviewed for things like jargon and comprehensibility to the layperson. By giving them as much info as we can up front, all we are doing is saving them time on things they have to do anyway. There is no AGF here; it's them having the info to check for the things they are required to check for. Perhaps you weren't aware they were having to do all of this work; I was, because it did for six hours a day, almost every day. As to "turning off reviewers"; I'm a reviewer who is turning off by seeing this slide and reviews becoming increasingly too lax, so there are two sides to that coin. The better FA integrity is perserved, the more likely we are to have reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, so it's the coords job to check this, not the reviewers' job to declare it. It's not enforceable unless the last gate checks it and that's the promoting coord. Are we going to start handing out FAC bans to people who don't declare this subjective COI? How does it work in practice unless the coord does this job? I am fully behind the idea of transparency (and that has absolutely nothing to do with WikiCup) but this should just apply to every single nominator and every single reviewer, and as such a declaration of a COI, perceived or otherwise, is really a waste of time. What you're noting here is just the regular play at FAC, most articles are niche, we don't get water or air nominated too often, so by its very nature, many people reviewing will have a COI by virtue of being interested in promoting a topic in which they are inherently interested. In my mind, this has now become too vague, too subjective, and enforceable, i.e. a waste of time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to go excessively CREEPy and spell that out, but let's look at a medical example, because most of us are careful to explain from what point we are reviewing (eg, as a physician, layperson, etc), which is more relevant than whether we belong to the Medicine project (I am not officially listed as a member there, because of That Other Thing). The Coords need to be assured that topic experts have had a look in the case of medicine, and we think we have that covered, intuitively. What I meant about Preity Zinta was that all the Indian editors came streaming in to pile-on support; that was verifiable then by checking the project member list. So, no, I don't think we need to declare WP membership and go so far as to spell that out. And I think the Coords know which editors are MILHIST because they are so prolific, ditto for the art cabal. There may be other areas where it is less clear, but the Coords are likely to know it when they see it ... that is, only sports editors reviewing sports articles, and then a jargon check will be needed. Perhaps someone has other examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also have a question relating to Preity Zinta. Does "involvement in a Wikiproject" mean a conflict of interest? I mean, this is getting seriously into creep-land. What is being declared as a COI here is somewhat subjective. We can't enforce this. And as for "who reviews my FACs", I have no control over that, but ironically we're often encouraged to get people from related WikiProjects to contribute. An inherent COI.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now "potential" has gone, this is alright. I still firmly believe it's overkill but hey, YMMV. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Graham Beards and Lazer brain. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Laser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as overreach. Originally WP:COI meant not writing about yourself, your family members, or your employer. But some people want it interpreted as broadly as possible so they can fish for personal information. My contract with my former employer explicitly stated that I was not to mention my firm or my work on any form of social media. This had nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia; the concern was about IP, insider trading and disclosures that could affect the stock price. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- NONE of the wording in these proposals links to the Wiki-construct of WP:COI and none of your concerns relate to any of this proposal. There is such a thing as general "conflict of interest" in the usual sense for most people in the real world. In this case, as in, just saying in your review that you may be too close to the material because you were the GAN reviewer. This has zero to do with the policy page at WP:COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- This sounds like a job for a bot. Get a bot to determine how many edits a reviewer has made to the nomination, get a bot to determine if they participated at PR or GAN. Hell, get a bot to determine how many interactions reviewers and nominator have had in the past. You're basically asking humans to make an assessment if they think they have a COI, which is plainly not functional, so let a robot decide. As COI is clearly subjective, get statistics. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the coordinators can treat reviews entirely on their own merit, this is unnecessary. If they cannot, and need to examine the reviewers' background (so to speak), then this is insufficient, and any requirement that is sufficient would be wildly excessive in terms of CREEP. I'm also not a fan of the idea that members of a Wikiproject will all review something the same way; cabals do form, to be certain, but they form in far more insidious ways than Wikicup participants banding together to support each others' nominations. Indeed, if we have a problem with such cabals, putting this requirement in place may actively make it worse, in that it may give the illusion of security without changing anything substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- The concern, as in examples given, has always been that it is the Coords job to be sure independent review is present, and in the case of specialist topics (like medicine, art, MILHIST), that jargon and accessibility to the layperson is addressed. To that end, the more information nominators can give Coords, the easier is their job. If "Wikicup participants [are] banding together to support each others' nominations", that goes beyond the concerns raised in this discussion (and isn't likely to be something we could detect anyway). I am more concerned with FACs that are being archived because they are not getting reviewed at all, when they appear worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Riiight. So this has nothing to do with people being involved, it's to do with lack of independence. So it would be better for someone to declare their "neutrality" in a review rather than their possible COI? Talk about moving the goalposts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (Added post-EC; this is directed at SG, not TRM) I understand that; I just don't think acknowledging project membership and wikicup participation does anything substantial to aid our understanding of the independence of a review. A 20-question survey determining the reviewer's opinions and experience with respect to the topic under consideration might, but that's excessive, as I've said. I agree that we have a lack of reviewers, but I do not accept the premise that the Wikicup is somehow contributing to this lack. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Harrias's proposal (which I slightly shortened) makes no mention of project membership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hold on, so the pile-on support from the Wikiproject wasn't a COI? Or was it that it was just easy to detect? I don't get it. Especially in light of your "wikifriends" comment above. And again, a red herring. You've stated now that you're looking for evidence of an independent review not evidence of non-independent reviews. Which is it this is trying to solve? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CREEP. Firstly, it's clear that the community norm is to not require disclosing WikiCup participation in nominations. IIUC, the proposal would prescribe a behavior that was already prescribed years ago but never actually adopted in practice; I don't see the benefit of reviving a rule that was already tried and abandoned. Others have pointed out why the rule would not be particularly useful, and I agree with that assessment. Secondly, more rules makes it harder for people to get involved, and the disconnect between this local notion of "COI" and our project-wide definition at WP:COI makes confusion all-the-more likely. We need more reviewers, and esoteric restrictions that redefine project-wide notions will only discourage participation. Baroque and conflicting guidance which requires behavior no one actually follows is exactly what WP:CREEP counsels against because they will not be followed in practice. It already happened the last time this was tried. (edit conflict × 2)— Wug·a·po·des 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes just to make sure you're aware, you have misstated the case. Absolutely WikiCup participation was declared in the past. The part that got messed up is that there was a bot at some point (after I resigned, apparently) that is no longer. Also, this "rule" is something that good nominators do regularly anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, so those of us who didn't do it because we consider there to be precisely zero COI aren't "good nominators"? Jesus, way to kill FAC. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair assessment of SG's point. The people most likely to be impacted by this change should already know the local best practices, and that's what I understood her "good reviewers" point to mean. She and others are correct that it is useful information; I just disagree with whether it should be added to the instructions as a requirement. My concern is that this will confuse newer participants or be used as a cudgel against them (likely by other relatively new participants). — Wug·a·po·des 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. I'm what I'd consider to be a "good" reviewer and a "good" nominator yet I've never felt it necessary to submit any kind of statement on a possible COI for anything I've ever done, precisely because I'm a "good" reviewer and a "good" nominator. I nominate my best work and I review to the best of my ability anything I choose to review. To suggest that now I have to state I might have a COI because I like football or because I've interacted with the nominator or because my nomination might be part of the WikiCup is not useful in any sense to anyone, as proven above. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Thanks for clarifying. In that case I think I would strongly prefer a bot that gives vital stats on noms over a requirement that noms provide the info themselves. Not only would it lower the bar to entry, but it is easily extensible. If coords or reviewers think knowing X would be helpful, we can just modify the bot to include X in its comment, but creating requirements to self disclose that information would be an uphill battle every time and ultimately lead to long and useless directions (or not getting the information at all). I'm rather busy in meatspace recently, so unfortunately I can't devote much time to developing a bot. If anyone knows where the legacy code might be, I can look into getting it running again though. — Wug·a·po·des 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: it was apparently after my time, but I found it by searching FAC archives for 2012, which was when Harrias mentioned it was added to WikiCup instructions (going by the wayside only in 2017). It was UcuchaBot. User:Ucucha was another FAC delegate, around my time. I guess he shared the concern, as he wrote the bot. Ucucha is occasionally still active; or maybe someone can email him for this code. All this "how dare you" blunderbuss (aimed at me for asking) is about something that was commonplace at FAC for many years. If you are able to get your hands on the code (or if anyone else can, for that matter), the other bot thing that has gone by the wayside is complete updating of the Template:Articlehistory on talk pages. GimmeBot used to add all the parameters. Now we have talk page clutter because some bots add some pieces, but miss others, which I have taken to fixing lately. If we don't get this feature reinstated by bot, I will take this opportunity to put in a plug to remind regulars to update their article milestones! After all the work we did (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches) to clean up Every Single Talk Page of every GA and FA a decade ago, it is disappointing now to find talk pages cluttered with templates that should be added to articlemilestones, which I have taken to doing manually as I come across them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- The FACBot should be doing this for all featured articles! Report any slip ups to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, too many to mention. FACBOT does not roll in all older event as GimmeBot did, and it does not put them in order. Just today, I fixed Talk:Biblical criticism, currently at FAC. Here is where FACBOT failed to roll in an old peer review and an old AFD. I noticed because I have been dismayed that this FAC should have been mentored, and needed a PR pre-FAC. The nominator had to point out to me that it had been peer reviewed. The talk page was a mess so I missed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully this will get sorted, and we all learned a lesson about dependence on bots where the owner doesn't make the source code available. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still, I get to remind folks here to keep their talk pages in order, because it is tedious work! Separately, do we have reason to think Ucuchabot's code won't be made available? We probably just have to email him. And separately, separately, I'm not even going to engage the rest of the aggression and misreading/misinterpretation that unfolded as a result of asking what became of a once standard feature/bot at FAC, but TRM, can we have these discussions without the unnecessary escalation? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't "escalate" anything. I asked for evidence that there was a problem. I asked for evidence of "lax reviews" which have detrimentally affected Wikipedia. I'm not clear what I "escalated" other than a request for logical reasoning with evidence. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still, I get to remind folks here to keep their talk pages in order, because it is tedious work! Separately, do we have reason to think Ucuchabot's code won't be made available? We probably just have to email him. And separately, separately, I'm not even going to engage the rest of the aggression and misreading/misinterpretation that unfolded as a result of asking what became of a once standard feature/bot at FAC, but TRM, can we have these discussions without the unnecessary escalation? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully this will get sorted, and we all learned a lesson about dependence on bots where the owner doesn't make the source code available. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, too many to mention. FACBOT does not roll in all older event as GimmeBot did, and it does not put them in order. Just today, I fixed Talk:Biblical criticism, currently at FAC. Here is where FACBOT failed to roll in an old peer review and an old AFD. I noticed because I have been dismayed that this FAC should have been mentored, and needed a PR pre-FAC. The nominator had to point out to me that it had been peer reviewed. The talk page was a mess so I missed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The FACBot should be doing this for all featured articles! Report any slip ups to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: it was apparently after my time, but I found it by searching FAC archives for 2012, which was when Harrias mentioned it was added to WikiCup instructions (going by the wayside only in 2017). It was UcuchaBot. User:Ucucha was another FAC delegate, around my time. I guess he shared the concern, as he wrote the bot. Ucucha is occasionally still active; or maybe someone can email him for this code. All this "how dare you" blunderbuss (aimed at me for asking) is about something that was commonplace at FAC for many years. If you are able to get your hands on the code (or if anyone else can, for that matter), the other bot thing that has gone by the wayside is complete updating of the Template:Articlehistory on talk pages. GimmeBot used to add all the parameters. Now we have talk page clutter because some bots add some pieces, but miss others, which I have taken to fixing lately. If we don't get this feature reinstated by bot, I will take this opportunity to put in a plug to remind regulars to update their article milestones! After all the work we did (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches) to clean up Every Single Talk Page of every GA and FA a decade ago, it is disappointing now to find talk pages cluttered with templates that should be added to articlemilestones, which I have taken to doing manually as I come across them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I often recognize that a nomination is Wikicup-eligible, but it makes no difference to the way I review, and I don't think it should make any difference to the way anyone reviews. Hence I don't think the rule would benefit reviewers. Noone is arguing it would benefit nominators, so that leaves the coords. If all three say such a rule would help them I'd probably go along with their preference, but that's not what we're hearing so far. I wouldn't object to a revival of Ucuchabot marking up the FACs as being in the Wikicup, but I haven't missed it. I should also say that I am certain I've read more FACs than anyone on the planet, having reviewed each one since mid-2007, and many before that, and I have seen multiple FACs with low-quality pile-on supports, all of which were easily identifiable as such without any declaration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mike, while I respect your Oppose, I don't want to let this (perennial issue) pass into archives without some corrections.
- The issue raised is not the way any given reviewer reviews, but whether they review at all. I explained that in my reasoning. And that affects integrity.
- The long-standing rule does benefit reviewers, as explained by both F&F and me, even though we have dramatically different reasons.
- I don't think you are correctly representing the issue for Coords. WRT current Coords, we have different takes from Laser and Ealdgyth. WRT past delegates, we have different takes from Graham and me. We have the unspoken Ucucha, who created a bot to flag WikiCup noms. So, even if Ian Rose weighs in with something dramatically in one direction or another, we don't have anything close to a consensus among those who sat in the hot seat of having to decide when to archive FACs. And that is a good thing, because hopefully there is still (there once was) no backchannel coordination in terms of how each delegate approaches these decisions.
- For odd reasons, the discussion was entirely sidetracked onto unrelated issues, that should be clarified. The need for disclosure is related to archiving, and timing of archiving, as much as promoting. No matter the number of FACs you have read, you have to sit in the hot seat of the most vexxing decision of all to understand the number of factors that come in to play: should I shut down this FAC which has x supports at y weeks? To me at least, the decision to archive a FAC was always the hardest one, never done lightly, and you cannot discern my reasoning in every case by reading the archives, nor can you see all of the factors involved. And we have a worse position today in terms of FACs that are being archived because of no feedback. Separately, those who have sidetracked this discussion to one only about promotions (ala "an FA is an FA") could benefit from some institutional history, as this is not the case. Sometimes an article is promoted when there is nothing the Coord can do otherwise except respect consensus; one sample—there are others. No matter how much data you analyze, or how many FACs you read, there are things you can't capture-- like that I never promoted one of those FACs without having to hold my nose, and now we know why. The Coords have to take into account everything when a FAC is not getting reviewed before they make the weighty decision to archive. Whether it is WikiCup-related is one of those factors, as we have now at least two reviewers who say they don't review contest nominations, and with two very different reasons for why they don't review contest noms.
- The bottom line is this discussion did not need to become acrimonious, and reinstating what has always been done by bot will solve one part of the perennial discussions about the effect WikiCup has on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- If FA nominations by Wikicup participants are receiving lower attention because of Wikicup participation, how will flagging that participation more prominently help in any way? If you're claiming that FA nominations by Wikicup participants are reducing participation on other FACs, I have yet to see either evidence or a logical argument for that claim. And if the underlying issue is just that participation in a competition isn't welcome at FAC, that's something that should be addressed directly, and in a forum with wider participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think if you will carefully re-read, you may find that is not what I am claiming. Since I have explained this multiple times, I will avoid going down that road again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- No-one has provided any evidence that any of this is problematic in any sense. Essentially this is a 60KB timesink. And as for the perennial discussions about the effect WikiCup has on FAC, if you mean more high quality submissions from editors and high quality reviewers from those who are dedicated to excellence, then I don't see a problem at all with the status quo. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- We might not have 60KB if people (errrr ... mostly you ... ) would stop reading things I didn't write. No, I never said anything about quality of submissions; I don't share F&F's concern on that score, which is well known from my past delegate statements. And since I have repeatedly stated what my concerns are, again, not following another distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not reading anything at all, that's the problem. There's no evidence to anything being suggested: lower quality nominations, lower quality reviews which have been overlooked by the Coords, lack of reviews for "non-WikiCup" entrants (although that's meaningless) etc etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Those are not my points. (I don't have these communication problems with Mike, and you've managed to misinterpret everything in this conversation before he has even responded.) You may have the last word. Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll repeat it it for the third or fourth time: where is the evidence that your original point or any subsequent points is actually a problem? Because you've done a lot of moving goalposts and talking around the purported issue at hand, but I don't see anything backing it up at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Those are not my points. (I don't have these communication problems with Mike, and you've managed to misinterpret everything in this conversation before he has even responded.) You may have the last word. Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not reading anything at all, that's the problem. There's no evidence to anything being suggested: lower quality nominations, lower quality reviews which have been overlooked by the Coords, lack of reviews for "non-WikiCup" entrants (although that's meaningless) etc etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- We might not have 60KB if people (errrr ... mostly you ... ) would stop reading things I didn't write. No, I never said anything about quality of submissions; I don't share F&F's concern on that score, which is well known from my past delegate statements. And since I have repeatedly stated what my concerns are, again, not following another distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- No-one has provided any evidence that any of this is problematic in any sense. Essentially this is a 60KB timesink. And as for the perennial discussions about the effect WikiCup has on FAC, if you mean more high quality submissions from editors and high quality reviewers from those who are dedicated to excellence, then I don't see a problem at all with the status quo. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think if you will carefully re-read, you may find that is not what I am claiming. Since I have explained this multiple times, I will avoid going down that road again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, here's my understanding of what you and F&f posted. F&f is concerned about poor quality WikiCup nominations and wants to be aware that a nomination is from a Wikicup participant so they can consider that in deciding whether to review it. Your three concerns are that a group such as MILHIST should have their nominations reviewed by a reviewer not from that group; that when a WikiProject's participants show up en masse the coord should be aware so they can take that into account; and that if something such as student editing is drawing resources to one FAC in particular the coords should be aware so they can decide to give more time to other FACs, rather than archiving as quickly as they otherwise might. Is that a fair summary?
- The quality of a review is judged by the coords, so it's a benefit to them if reviewers declare a potential CoI. But the quality of a nomination is judged by the reviewers, and I think we do a reasonably impartial job of it. Of course F&f is free to avoid reviewing WikiCup nominations if they wish, but I don't think it's a benefit to FAC to make it easy for reviewers to do that; it might weaken or even balkanize our reviewing. I agree with you about the hot seat, and as I said, if the current coords (I have a lot of faith in all three of them) have a strong opinion on this I would be swayed by that. But it seems to me that if WikiCup participants are willing to drop their nominations into the FAC hopper we should judge them on their merits. I've heard that candidates for positions in major orchestras have to perform anonymously, behind screens, so that those making the hiring decision can't be swayed by a musician's reputation. If it were plausible to do it I'd rather we move in that direction, towards more anonymity, rather than less. To me a rule benefits a reviewer if it makes it easier for them to do their job. I don't think that would be the case here.
- I think the common thread in your three examples is that a coordinator would benefit from fully understanding the situation in order to make the best decision. The only way that would apply to a WikiCup nomination is if there is QPQ reviewing going on, and that seems so rare this is not worth trying to enforce. (Though as I said if UcuchaBot's code can be restarted I wouldn't bother to oppose it; I just don't think it would matter much.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mike, let's see if I can clarify and expand without having my words twisted; if they are (again), we'll have to suspend attempts. That is not my understanding of F&f's concerns. I think (but I am guessing here) that his concerns speak to the issue that the reputation of FAC is sliding because it focuses increasingly on niche topics rather than broad topics, and he has no interest in reviewing niche topics. I could be misunderstanding him. We share a concern that the reputation of FAC is quite seriously sliding, but I suspect we may disagree about why and what can be done about it. Having read thousands and promoted hundreds of pop culture or niche articles, I am not concerned about F&f’s niche "quality" issue; it is my belief that if we raise the quality of the overall pool back to a place of prestige, more people will submit broader articles as well (we have one on the page now). And I believe we raise the overall reputation by working at FAR to remove the considerable number of poor FAs from the books. None of this has any bearing on my simple query about what happened to a long-standing practice of identifying WikiCup participants, but is the direction others took the conversation after Harrias's proposal. If I am understanding F&f's position, he is more concerned about the overall reputation of FAC (as am I), but in this discussion, when and why I started it, I was more concerned that each article at FAC gets its fair shake at promotion, without premature archival. My own positions are ... In (the new) environment where many FACs are being archived for lack of review, we have to take greater care that worthy nominations are not being archived too quickly, simply because some reviewers will not entertain WikiCup nominations because they don't want to be drawn into a competition. I suspect, but am not sure, that my definition of worthy is quite different than F&f's; that is, I mean an article that is well prepared and deserves a fair shake, regardless if it's a niche topic or a broader one. Where F&f and I agree is that I won't knowingly review a WikiCup nomination-- not because it's niche, broad, worthy, or otherwise, but because I want nothing to do with a competition, where by reviewing an article I may be prejudicing another editor's standing in a competition. So, quality is affected because reviewers stand down. And F&f seems to be saying that means the overall pool in terms of niche v. broad is affected. I don't discount what he says, but that's not my concern wrt the long-standing practice of identifying noms that are part of a competition, and knowing which reviewers are also part of that competition. My POV differs from F&fs. And is ... If FA regulars have no interest in participating actively at FAR, the sham that is our overall pool of articles will eventually become clear to the rest of Wikipedia, as we have nothing of substance to offer the mainpage but plenty of badly dated FAs on the books, and the problem will be taken out of our hands and dealt with by the broader community. My own concerns for the narrow question I asked that started this discussion are that: a) Coords have all the info to not archive a FAC too quickly simply because some reviewers won't engage. b) Coords not have to take their time to go over and see which noms are WikiCup (it should be no skin off of anyone's back to identify that, just as a bot did and can). I have other concerns that ARE impacting the integrity of FAC, which I will address after WikiCup closes so as not to prejudice outcomes. I think your summary of my three other concerns are side issues that fell out of this discussion, but not necessarily the initial concern that led me to raise the question, which was, take care that worthy but overlooked noms aren't archived too quickly. That this should be so hard to understand is an indication that quite a few FAC regulars may not be reading the entire FAC page. (I still process the FAC page the same way I did as delegate: I sit down and read it top to bottom to get the overall picture.) The three concerns of mine that you list are things the Coords do and should do aware of at any rate (well, at least I hope so), with or without declarations, but the declarations save them time (as Ealdgyth points out). When I nominate a medical article, and state up front which physicians and laypersons have reviewed on talk, whether it has already had a MOS review, etc ... that is the kind of information that is intended to help both Coords and other reviewers decide whether to engage, how quickly to archive/promote, etc. Yes, declarations and conflicts are something that experienced and conscientous nominators and reviewers do anyway. On the QPQ matter, it has always been eschewed at FAC, for very good reasons, and we should hold a broader discussion about how it is taking hold once WikiCup ends, and what effect that has; I am unwilling to bow to TRM's demands for evidence at a time when open FACs could be affected by statements made here. I'm not sure if I've cleared anything up for you, but if both reviewers and Coords don't have to be checking for which articles are contest-related, it's easier on both sets. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sadly just flimflam and hand-wringing. Indeed it seems abundantly clear from this discussion that alerting people that a nomination might be part of the WikiCup is actually detrimental to the process overall. And sure, don't "bow" to the request for evidence to the contrary, that makes for a most ridiculous position to adopt. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mike, let's see if I can clarify and expand without having my words twisted; if they are (again), we'll have to suspend attempts. That is not my understanding of F&f's concerns. I think (but I am guessing here) that his concerns speak to the issue that the reputation of FAC is sliding because it focuses increasingly on niche topics rather than broad topics, and he has no interest in reviewing niche topics. I could be misunderstanding him. We share a concern that the reputation of FAC is quite seriously sliding, but I suspect we may disagree about why and what can be done about it. Having read thousands and promoted hundreds of pop culture or niche articles, I am not concerned about F&f’s niche "quality" issue; it is my belief that if we raise the quality of the overall pool back to a place of prestige, more people will submit broader articles as well (we have one on the page now). And I believe we raise the overall reputation by working at FAR to remove the considerable number of poor FAs from the books. None of this has any bearing on my simple query about what happened to a long-standing practice of identifying WikiCup participants, but is the direction others took the conversation after Harrias's proposal. If I am understanding F&f's position, he is more concerned about the overall reputation of FAC (as am I), but in this discussion, when and why I started it, I was more concerned that each article at FAC gets its fair shake at promotion, without premature archival. My own positions are ... In (the new) environment where many FACs are being archived for lack of review, we have to take greater care that worthy nominations are not being archived too quickly, simply because some reviewers will not entertain WikiCup nominations because they don't want to be drawn into a competition. I suspect, but am not sure, that my definition of worthy is quite different than F&f's; that is, I mean an article that is well prepared and deserves a fair shake, regardless if it's a niche topic or a broader one. Where F&f and I agree is that I won't knowingly review a WikiCup nomination-- not because it's niche, broad, worthy, or otherwise, but because I want nothing to do with a competition, where by reviewing an article I may be prejudicing another editor's standing in a competition. So, quality is affected because reviewers stand down. And F&f seems to be saying that means the overall pool in terms of niche v. broad is affected. I don't discount what he says, but that's not my concern wrt the long-standing practice of identifying noms that are part of a competition, and knowing which reviewers are also part of that competition. My POV differs from F&fs. And is ... If FA regulars have no interest in participating actively at FAR, the sham that is our overall pool of articles will eventually become clear to the rest of Wikipedia, as we have nothing of substance to offer the mainpage but plenty of badly dated FAs on the books, and the problem will be taken out of our hands and dealt with by the broader community. My own concerns for the narrow question I asked that started this discussion are that: a) Coords have all the info to not archive a FAC too quickly simply because some reviewers won't engage. b) Coords not have to take their time to go over and see which noms are WikiCup (it should be no skin off of anyone's back to identify that, just as a bot did and can). I have other concerns that ARE impacting the integrity of FAC, which I will address after WikiCup closes so as not to prejudice outcomes. I think your summary of my three other concerns are side issues that fell out of this discussion, but not necessarily the initial concern that led me to raise the question, which was, take care that worthy but overlooked noms aren't archived too quickly. That this should be so hard to understand is an indication that quite a few FAC regulars may not be reading the entire FAC page. (I still process the FAC page the same way I did as delegate: I sit down and read it top to bottom to get the overall picture.) The three concerns of mine that you list are things the Coords do and should do aware of at any rate (well, at least I hope so), with or without declarations, but the declarations save them time (as Ealdgyth points out). When I nominate a medical article, and state up front which physicians and laypersons have reviewed on talk, whether it has already had a MOS review, etc ... that is the kind of information that is intended to help both Coords and other reviewers decide whether to engage, how quickly to archive/promote, etc. Yes, declarations and conflicts are something that experienced and conscientous nominators and reviewers do anyway. On the QPQ matter, it has always been eschewed at FAC, for very good reasons, and we should hold a broader discussion about how it is taking hold once WikiCup ends, and what effect that has; I am unwilling to bow to TRM's demands for evidence at a time when open FACs could be affected by statements made here. I'm not sure if I've cleared anything up for you, but if both reviewers and Coords don't have to be checking for which articles are contest-related, it's easier on both sets. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- If FA nominations by Wikicup participants are receiving lower attention because of Wikicup participation, how will flagging that participation more prominently help in any way? If you're claiming that FA nominations by Wikicup participants are reducing participation on other FACs, I have yet to see either evidence or a logical argument for that claim. And if the underlying issue is just that participation in a competition isn't welcome at FAC, that's something that should be addressed directly, and in a forum with wider participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mike, while I respect your Oppose, I don't want to let this (perennial issue) pass into archives without some corrections.
- Oppose per Mike Christie and Laser brain. I do not see a clear benefit to having a nominator disclose their WikiCup nomination as part of their FAC. I understand SandyGeorgia's statement that FACs should get more reviews from editors not familiar with that particular subject area, but I do not think this is the best course of action to address this. I just do not see how this would benefits nominators or reviewers. This is just my opinion, and this kind of thing should be left up to editors who are far more experienced than myself. This proposal just doesn't sit well with me so I thought I should speak up. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I will oppose any and all measures that make things more difficult for our precious few FA editors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some individuals here are basically underlining that they are assuming bad faith, that somehow either nominators or reviewers participating in the WikiCup are somehow different in a negative sense such that they need to "expose" themselves. How anyone could even think this is a positive for FAC (which is already in the doldrums) I know not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I see my name being mentioned. Perhaps this is a good place to clarify.
- If by the use of "niche" is meant I don't like nominations that are narrow in scope or readership, then I disagree
- If by the use of "broad" is meant I invariantly like nominations of an expansive scope or readership, then I also disagree.
- So, what is my argument?
- The problems at FAC are not so much those of a preponderance of niche articles (in scope and readership) or the absence of the broad, but the steady increase of ritual submissions, i.e. those that are repetitive and given value well within a particular subgroup.
- It is my view that Wikicup on average promotes ritual submissions.
- I have a right to know because collectively, though not individually, ritual submissions violate the broad principles of equity and diversity dear to WP.
- Accordingly, I will not use that information to walk away from an individual article, but I will assign a collective limit, and it might be low. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, F&f, and my apologies for any misattribution, misunderstanding or misreading I may have contributed. The only thing I was clear on is that people's positions have been so distorted in this conversation that I didn't know for sure what your position was. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of course this is nonsensical. I (for example) have a personal project running, see here. Whether I was in the WikiCup or not, I would have two FACs running simultaneously (one is always a co-nomination) until I get my project complete. If that means I miss out on your "reviews", I guess that's my cross to bear, the humanity! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Another feature of ritual acts is that their non-performance causes primary anxiety. For ordinary nominations the act of submission is the primary anxiety; for ritual ones, it is the possibility of not being allowed to submit, or complete, or be delayed. The ritualists don't tend to say, I'm withdrawing my nomination. I'll come back in a few months when better prepared.
- I never said that the few I do review, I won't hold their feet to the fire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've never felt the slightest inclination to withdraw in any of my 30+ FACs. The quality is there. This odd thought experiment you're conducting is unhelpful and has literally nothing to do with the initial perceived issue. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- "I have a right to know because collectively, though not individually, ritual submissions violate the broad principles of equity and diversity dear to WP." - then why on earth do we have featured topics? This actively promotes expanding articles that are similar in this way. I don't get what policies Wikipedia has for an editor (or a group of editors) to not promote whatever articles they wish to work on.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lee, it's absolute nonsense. I think the less air time we give this niche viewpoint the better. After all, you and I and several of our cookie-cutting colleagues are actively seeking to improve Wikipedia. We're not actively seeking to discourage people from doing so. I wonder which of those two approaches should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
-
- Lee Vilenski thank you for asking your question and making your point without impugning, maligning, attacking, insinuating, derailing, detracting, or questioning motives of everyone else on this page; most appreciated. We hopefully are all working towards the same goal; figuring out what is ailing FAC so that we can address it before the community addresses it for us. I will continue in the next section once I get some data together. TRM, it would be most helpful if you would change your approach, to avoid turning this page into a battleground over questions posed with no malintent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pass the violins. I'm sick of the aloof insinuations being made here. Pleased to see consensus against such a futile effort to somehow "out" good faith competitors. FAC is already a dirge without adding more barriers and assumptions of bad faith. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- And I'm sick of what you're doing to FAC (talk), and hope others will call you on it. If FAC dies, who wins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Inserted "talk" per TRM comment below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pass the violins. I'm sick of the aloof insinuations being made here. Pleased to see consensus against such a futile effort to somehow "out" good faith competitors. FAC is already a dirge without adding more barriers and assumptions of bad faith. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski thank you for asking your question and making your point without impugning, maligning, attacking, insinuating, derailing, detracting, or questioning motives of everyone else on this page; most appreciated. We hopefully are all working towards the same goal; figuring out what is ailing FAC so that we can address it before the community addresses it for us. I will continue in the next section once I get some data together. TRM, it would be most helpful if you would change your approach, to avoid turning this page into a battleground over questions posed with no malintent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- "I have a right to know because collectively, though not individually, ritual submissions violate the broad principles of equity and diversity dear to WP." - then why on earth do we have featured topics? This actively promotes expanding articles that are similar in this way. I don't get what policies Wikipedia has for an editor (or a group of editors) to not promote whatever articles they wish to work on.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've never felt the slightest inclination to withdraw in any of my 30+ FACs. The quality is there. This odd thought experiment you're conducting is unhelpful and has literally nothing to do with the initial perceived issue. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Coord note Folks, can we start behaving and commenting on the proposal and NOT on the other editors, please? It's long since degenerated, and needs to stop. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Um, not quite, I'd like Sandy to explain precisely what she means. What am I "doing to FAC"? Submitting articles on things that I'm interested in of which I happen to have written a lot of? How offensive. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to play the "mommy" role here and say who is being "worse". I think EVERYONE needs to just drop any discussion of other editors, all across the board. We're adults. We're supposed to be able to let things drop when it's no longer productive... not do the child thing of "but they started it" or "I need to get the last word in". I don't want to start striking things because I DO think we're all adults and can behave better. Let's start now. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Question on stats
- Question. Has anyone looked at how often WikiCup reviewers oppose? One of the main problems at FAC is the lack of willingness to oppose, because doing so means you could be stuck there for weeks, checking sources and revisions. Few reviewers are willing to do it, especially at complex topics. I don't know how WikiCup and FAC reviewing interact, but WikiCup strikes me as yet another reason to want to get in and out quickly with your points, rather than be dragged into something protracted. SarahSV (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I cannot stress how much I don't want to go down this path. --Laser brain (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Laser_brain, could you say more about why not? If something might encourage reviewers to support to speed things up, that obviously undermines quality. Good data would help, but if people aren't declaring they're part of WikiCup, then there is no data. SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- In order to gauge the impact of WikiCup participants, it is vital to gauge how many non-participants actually oppose in order to provide a proper comparison. I seldom see opposition ever in any FAC other than those which are truly "quick-fails". And after all, a WikiCup review at FAC is practically worthless in terms of points (cf 5 points for a review vs 200 points plus bonus for an actual FA). And ultimately, if coords aren't judging the quality of every review, regardless of competition participation, they're not doing their jobs properly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's also worth mentioning that do give a review, you have to state your participation already, so that discussion is moot, unless we are thinking of revoking this requirement. This discussion is about if we should have to denote this on nominations as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's how it started and it's since devolved into hearing assumption after assumption of bad faith and listening to abject aloof snobbery. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are so few opposes these days from *anyone* that I think it would be hard to show anything statistically convincing about them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Sarah, I think that the dying use of the oppose button goes beyond, and is not necessarily related to, WikiCup in any way that I can see. And while I immensely appreciate Mike Christie's ongoing attempts to generate real data, I have three problems with his efforts. 1) I have seen in the past that some of his attempts generate data that can't tell the full story, because there are too many conflating factors, items in WIAFA that have changed over time along with adding or losing certain reviewing practices (copyvio checks and Ealdgyth's source reviews) and things that only the Coords know, re what went into certain decisions. 2) Some of his data has been used to draw conclusions which, having sat in the seat of making the decisions, I believe are faulty. 3) I would MUCH rather see Mike's efforts be spent where they can have a real impact, that is, using his skill as a reviewer. I think we have all the data we need to know there is a serious problem we should all be focused on.
Most of what we need to know is available right here, augmented by this:
Year | Promoted | Archived | Total | % Promoted |
FAs demoted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 280 | 131 | 411 | 68.1% | 14 |
2018 | 235 | 147 | 382 | 61.5% | 29 |
2017 | 338 | 125 | 463 | 73.0% | 12 |
2016 | 227 | 138 | 365 | 62.2% | 11 |
2015 | 303 | 182 | 485 | 62.5% | 51 |
2014 | 322 | 183 | 505 | 63.8% | 24 |
2013 | 390 | 261 | 651 | 59.9% | 29 |
2012 | 375 | 261 | 636 | 59.0% | 39 |
2011 | 355 | 310 | 665 | 53.4% | 47 |
2010 | 513 | 412 | 925 | 55.5% | 115 |
2009 | 522 | 469 | 991 | 52.7% | 157 |
2008 | 719 | 609 | 1,328 | 54.1% | 143 |
2007 | 773 | 706 | 1,479 | 52.3% | 192 |
2006 | 560 | 920 | 1,480 | 37.8% | 201 |
2005 | 437 | 682 | 1,119 | 39.1% | 61 |
- The "Oppose" has died.
- We are processing overall about one-fourth of what FAC used to process.
- We are promoting overall an increasing percentage (FAC has become PR, where articles are pulled through to standard).
- We pretty much no longer demote deficient and dated FAs.
- FAC is no longer generating 365 FAs per year, so although we still have enough built up from the past to feed TFA, the variety of topics available is increasingly limited. I don't have stats, but I am fairly certain mainpage views of TFA are declining over time, as we no longer hold the interest of even the Wikipedia community, because the diversity of topics we present on the mainpage is limited, due to our declining pool overall. Anyone up to looking at mainpage TFA views over time? (Sounds like a big chore.)
- Another piece of missing data is ... what is the percentage over time of MILHIST promotions? I suspect that MILHIST is the only thing still keeping FAC alive, and I suspect that if we looked over time, we'd find that the percentage of overall promotions that are MILHIST is steadily increasing, such that FAC is mostly a MILHIST rubber stamp these days. And we know the community repeatedly complains about the preponderance of MILHIST articles at TFA. We can't change that if that's the only Project still feeding FAC. Unless we figure out how to get more diversity.
- We are exhausting the Coordinators.
Of great concern to many long-term FA participants is that we are seeing that the broader community is noticing that FA is becoming irrelevant. When multiple respected long-term Wikipedians are calling for FA to be abolished, or merged with GA (holy shit!), we should be worried, and we should be paying attention. For everyone who is so upset about any person raising any simple question here, I want to remind you that if FA is abolished or merged away, all of those rewards, icons, prizes or anything having to do with FA also become meaningless.
My own attempts have been:
- Start using the Oppose button as we used to. The fastest route to a bronze star is a well-formulated oppose, withdraw and fix, come back strong.
- Along with that, encourage the Coords to shut down opposed FACs faster, so resources can concentrate on the worthy FACs, and nominators can get their issues address faster off-FAC, for a quicker return to FAC.
- Start using Peer review as we used to. That is, when you oppose early, oppose often, follow through by meeting the participants at Peer review. Encourage first-time nominators to use peer review. Go help at peer review. At Ceoil's urging, this is the approach I am taking, and I have participated in five FAC-related PRs just since I started this about a month ago.
- Try to help re-invigorate nominations within your own editing sphere. The Medicine project (like so many others) had signed off of the FA process for five years (I was mostly inactive), and almost all of their older FAs are in disrepair. They had decided to focus only on leads, based on some sort of data that readers rarely read beyond leads and never check citations. This is HORRIBLE, because faulty medical content was left for years in bodies of articles (and leads too). I have tried to re-invigorate FA participation in Medicine. After a five-year dearth, we had two FAs so far this year, and another is in the works. And the Anatomy project asked me to write something up about WHY medical editors should care about FA, hence User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. At least we may have three more FAs on a topic more diverse than what is in our current TFA pool, as we were out of medical topics to run TFA.
- Mentor, mentor, mentor. Getting one FA passed is less helpful to than getting a new FA writer on board, who will generate more than one FA. Mushroom effect.
- Review outside your area. Even if you don't want to tackle a medical article, review it for jargon. Even if you can barely stand to go through another ship article, do it for jargon. We need independent review (non-content expert) of every kind of topic.
I have made multiple other attempts to deal with several of the "what ails FAC" issue, but my attempts to get more regulars engaged in helping clean out our older, deficient FAs has not soared. So, as long as we have a huge percentage of deficient FAs on the books, we can expect the broader community to no longer hold the bronze star in high regard. If you aren't helping out at FAR, you aren't helping the big picture, which the community is noticing. I have attempted to back the Coords, as I have seen how frightfully nasty this page has become, and that there is little the Coords can do about it when cliques take hold and chase out significantly good reviewers, as the Coords can't take sides. (To me, this is the biggest part of what ails FAC.)
So, to conclude, what can each of us do to try to re-invigorate FAC amid community calls from respected Wikipedians to abandon the process as they see we have becoming increasingly irrelevant? I don't know what all we CAN do, but I know that your star will mean nothing if there is no more FAC. Regards (anyone authorized to fix any of my gazillion typos up there), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
My first suggestion, in this vein, is that we used to do this: Template:FCDW-- only one example of the kinds of initiative to keep the overall process working, that came from the leader that FAC decided to fire. We should re-initiate a FA newsletter, ala Dispatches. It could be monthly, and would include Mike's reviewing stats, for example, along with overall stats and helpful tidbits for new and ongoing participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Heads up...
I'm moving into a crunch period with the gaming company I do work for. I'll be pretty dang busy for most of October and into early November. I had already warned my fellow coordinators, but figured I should warn ya'll. Expect this pretty much every late-September through early-November. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good luck, don't work too hard! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Good luck! Don't get too stressed! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)