Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured articles/Make Featured Article leaders elected (RFC)

< Wikipedia:Featured articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed early based on Community rejection TCO (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This is a proposal to change the Featured Article leadership to be periodically elected rather than historical and appointed.

What is the current leadership setup at Featured articles? edit

The Featured article program currently has a Director, Raul654, who is the ultimate leader of the project. Raul654 became FA Director in ~2004 by starting to do the job. He was approved in one talk page election shortly after. He has never stood for re-election.

All other leaders (Delegates) in the Featured article project were appointed by Raul654. He can dismiss Delegates and has done so at least once. Currently there are three delegate slots in Featured article candidates, two delegates in Featured article reviews, and one delegate for Today’s featured article.

Why change? edit

Issues edit

1. We are making fewer and fewer Featured Articles per year. At a time when the encyclopedia is turning more to quality of articles, FA should be growing. However, the year to year change in FAs (new FAs net of demotions) has dropped to half that of four years ago. In contrast, the Good article program is growing. There, the production rate is triple that of four years ago. GA has accomplished this while improving quality and, at one point, conducting a vast "sweep" (demotion campaign) of the old, lower-quality, GAs.

2. The FA project is anti-democratic. There is no mechanism for fellow volunteers to change the leadership (without huge investment in an RFC such as this one).

3. It gives the wrong message to new FA participants that leadership, based on history, is entrenched. How are we to attract new writers and reviewers when they see positions of leadership for life?

4. Too much power is concentrated with one, unelected, Director.

5. The current Director is effectively absent.

a. Since October, Raul has only made ~250 edits to Wikipedia, most not dealing with TFA or any part of the FA program.
b. Raul654 has not participated visibly in FAC or FAR for over a year.
c. There is a de facto leader at FAC, SandyGeorgia, but she was never elected to be the leader. There is no visible supervision of the acting leader.
d. A new delegate had to be added at TFA to handle that workload. Despite this, we recently missed updating the Main Page TFA once (queue empty).

6. In the last year we have lost two FA delegates. They left without saying goodbye to the program which they were leading. In both cases, there was a long delay before this was brought up by the Director and a successor named. No input was requested from FA participants nor any approval sought for the new delegate added (one vacancy exists now).

Opportunities edit

1. The discussion during elections will naturally lead to new ideas and changes in Featured Articles. And such discussions will be connected to some process that means something. That connects to action. Not just talk page chat.

2. Program-building aspects of leaders may be considered. Not just the ability to promote or fail submissions (important to be sure), but also the ability to grow the program and bring new participants in.

3. New leaders will contribute new tools or layouts for the project when they assume leadership. Recent new delegate Ucucha has just created a bot that checks for wikilink duplication (a time consuming and mind-numbing aspect of writing an FA).

4. More of a connect between leaders and participants (submitters and reviewers) will emerge. It will become more normal for participants to move between roles.

What would the new setup look like? edit

Shift to a system of annual elections for all Featured Article leaders. Elections will mimic the highly successful system of elections for Coordinators at the Military History WikiProject and at the Guild of Copywriting Editors. Most recent elections:

The shape of the proposal edit

Structure

  • Elections from February 01 through February 14.
  • Terms of service from February14 through next year’s elections (~14FEB2013)
  • Selection of 4 FAC delegates, 2 FAR delegates and 1 TFA delegate.
  • One of the above is also the overall Director for all of Featured Articles.

Process

  • Winners of the positions to be selected based on whoever gets the most “supports”.
  • Nominees to indicate if they are also willing to serve as Director. Among these, the candidate getting most votes to become Director.
  • Self-nomination by any interested member of the Community in good standing (not an IP or new account)
  • Voting by any interested member of the Community in good standing

Community vote edit

Please vote support or oppose. Keep rationales short. All comments on other voters' rationales should be made in the Discussion section (not intermingling). End 2359 15JAN2012.

Support proposed change edit

  1. Support per nom TCO (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposed change edit

  1. While in other respects I oppose "appointments" on a wiki, the plain fact is that it has worked very well at FAC. The forum is prone to stacking if we're not careful—something Sandy has worked hard to minimise. I don't want to see a popularity contest, because the job is not about popularity. WRT some of the material above, I don't go along with the assumption that declining FAC numbers is contrary to the goals of increasing quality. Tony (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First of all, most RFCs last for 30 days. This one is only lasting 7. Secondly, I agree with Tony - FAC is not a popularity contest. There is a certain level of "skill" and competence necessary for any leadership position in the FAC program. You need to know how to evaluate prose; how to determine if criticisms are ax-grinding, misinterpreting the FAC criteria, or are valid; how to prod discussions to keep them going, or when to archive them away; etc. --Rschen7754 05:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Honestly, this has a bad taste now that Sandy has resigned, but I have to continue showing my opposition in this. As someone who has opposed RFAs for lack of writing credentials, not everyone can write them. (Hell I'm trying for my 13th, but that's why I'm around these parts.) Not every has that ability. If FAs are going down to those who are dedicated, then we have to work with the stuff we have. Performing a mutiny on the leadership brings down the ship, doesn't solve the ship's problems. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tony's got it right. Additionally, WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Many of TCO's "opportunities" can be accomplished without elections. The best analogy for leadership selection isn't MILHIST or GOCE, but the other featured content processes that also use appointed leadership. In all cases, the leadership needs to be insulated from politics because they need the flexibility to archive nominations that don't meet the standards expected of the bronze star; the leadership shouldn't be worried that editors upset over archivals will vote them out of "office" at the end of the year. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with moving to an elected system for FAC delegates, but the timeframe here is much too hasty. I think that the benefits of electing editors into these positions above are also over-stated. As a I see it, the main benefit would be to encourage a (probably slow) turnover of personnel, which would contribute to making things run even more smoothly over the long term. I don't see how it would lead to a noticeable increase in the number of FAs. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I appreciate the sentiment that leadership in any process should not be entrenched, I don't see how this proposal directly relates to the problem that featured article promotions are declining. One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia in my mind is that there is a lack of systematic rigor used to develop process improvements. The RfC process encourages editors to state their opinions, but all too often degenerates into a factionalized mess as participants focus too hard on "winning", versus determining what solutions address the true root causes of the process problems. I strongly suggest that, before proceeding with radical changes to FAC such as this, we first reach consensus on what the process problems are, determine the root causes of those problems, and only then propose solutions that address those root causes. In my real-life job I spend significant time working continuous process improvement using tools such as Lean manufacturing and Six sigma; I think there might be ways to use these tools to find the right solution to fix FAC's problems. –Grondemar 05:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No, per missing the point as I've said elsewhere. Many risks from this approach for negligible gain. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would certainly be the wrong timing given Sandy's resignation. So the Good Articles owe their success to an elected Director, am I getting that right? Johnbod (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I don't believe that elected delgates or directors is the best way for the FA process to go.--MONGO 06:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The people currently doing the job are doing an job one. FAs are about quality and the bar has been raised over the proceeding 4 years, thus the numbers have dropped. I write GAs primarily due to my grammar not being sufficiently good to write FAs. I have the insight to realize this. The quality standards for GAs have also increased and for this we where rewarded by the community with a little green plus on all the articles no to long ago to go with the gold star. Wikipedia is becoming academic and the wording is beginning to recognize this. This has been a good direction to go and my support to all those who pushed us in this direction. Keep up the good work.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. There is no point in having this RFC if a much more extensive, much more detailed (and much better drafted) RFC is in the works. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (edit conflict) Oppose, my reasoning was the same as Titoxd's. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. per Casliber and Imzadi 1979 --Guerillero | My Talk 07:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Per all above. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose vague proposal. Oppose new process similar to RfAs. Oppose RfC without previous discussion. And oppose "We are making fewer and fewer Featured Articles per year. At a time when the encyclopedia is turning more to quality of articles, FA should be growing." statement as it may be related to fact that Wikipedia is dying. Oppose starting harmful RfC without showing that there is a problem. Support WP:SNOW. Bulwersator (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose poorly made case which includes the risible statement that "GA has maintained quality". Does this man never read anything he doesn't write himself? The quality of GA promotions is as variable as it ever was, some excellent stuff, some shamefully poor. On the contrary, the quality of FAs has improved enormously in the four years I've been active there, and much of that is due to Sandy. I have to work a great deal harder to get a promotion now, and that is as it should be; these are supposed to be Wikipedia's best. The system currently needs some care and attention, but this is not the way forward. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The current FA process seems to be too political and this proposal would make matters worse. Wikipedia processes should be scalable as we are aiming to summarise all of the world's knowledge and that's too much for one person. The current FA process seems to be a bottleneck because the one-per-day limit is quite small. The process for putting articles on the front page should be reworked to bring the FA/GA/DYK processes together in a seamless way which will promote both the quality and quantity that we need to get the job done. Enabling many editors to share the associated kudos seems to be a necessary part of this because that's about all the incentive that Wikipedia has to offer its contributors. Warden (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I do agree that we would benefit from a helpful change to the current system, in part for the reasons cited by nom which are quite possibly caused by a deeper problem. But I agree with the overwhelming (to date) sentiment that this is not the solution.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I haven't read anything on this page; I'm opposing because I don't remember seeing in the very long discussions at WT:FAC that anyone has objected to Mike Christie's role as facilitator in this process ... nor do I remember seeing anyone support TCO's request to take over. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose This is a premature and ill considered proposal...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I've already vociferously protested any election process at FAC, and warned TCO that any RfC he posted would be more about him than any issues at FAC. I should have attached an "if this happens you owe me $1,000" rider to my warnings [1] [2]. It would have been easy money. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Thank goodness. The proposer has a naive opinion of the merits of elections. Colin°Talk 14:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - No, no, no. I'm still on the fence about a reconfirmation, and I have no problem seeing a section on this in a well-laid-out RfC, but this overly-bureaucratic "election" proposal is just wrong. Mike is going about it the right way on WT:FAC, and you're going about it all wrong here. Have a straw poll to see what the issues are, then frame the questions, then RfC. Not just one person putting up their ideas on a process that they barely participate in. Dana boomer (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose The argument is flawed. The implication of point is that the role of the FA director and delegates directly effects the number of articles promoted without any supporting evidence. Considering the role of delegates is to weigh consensus when deciding to promote or archive it would seem to be looking at the wrong people. The GA sweeps was not a "demotion campaign" which implies an active effort to take away GA status, but a reassessment of old GAs to ensure they met the criteria. Many were delisted and many were kept. Regarding point four, it is only an issue if the position is misused or abused; I've not seen any evidence Raul has done this. If the issue is concentrated power this RfC should be suggesting a new more diffuse structure; if it is the fact Raul is unelected as he has said "The short version is that I just started doing it, the community was happy with the job I did, and about a year later we had an RFC that confirmed me in an official sort of way." Moreover, I fail to see how elections would remedy point six. There surely would still have been a period of waiting around to see if the absences were long or short term, hoping the delegates would return to active editing. The overall impression is of a poorly thought out RfC without solid foundation. If there is to be an RfC, this should not be it. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I oppose this idea and suggest you withdraw it. Any problems with FAC (either in the quality or quantity of articles or reviewers) is unrelated to the leadership structure. As long as I've been involved -- my first FA nom was in 2006 -- the director and delegates have done good jobs with little reward. Leave it be. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  1. You lost me at one - Featured articles are about quality, not quantity. So too should FAC delegates be. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am concerned that this will snowball into the other Featured content. And this is coming from a Featured Topic delegate. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA/FAC needs management, not governance. There is room for improvement but the rationale for using routine elections as the way forward is not convincing enough. maclean (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while there seems to be knee jerk reaction by many editors to maintain the status quo throughout the project no matter what I think there is a genuine issue here. FA numbers should be increasing as we focus on quality more just like good articles have - and standards have risen there too. So it isn't just a "high standards" issue (and of course high standards should be maintained).
  • I am dubious about elections as the way forward but I don't know what is the right answer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—the bottleneck on promotion has nothing to do with the delegates or the directors. The delegates can only promote when all of the various criteria have been checked, and the reviewers commenting on the nomination have reach consensus that the article should get promoted. If you want higher throughput at FAC, you need more reviewers engaged that understand the criteria. At the same time, you also need more nominators that bring prepared articles, or reviewers willing to oppose the poorly prepared ones early enough to clear them out of the queue. When a delegate spends hours reading the nomination page and can't find anything ready to be promoted, it's not the delegate's fault that there isn't enough feedback on enough pre-prepared articles. Imzadi 1979 → 11:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The question then becomes one of whether anyone has responsibility to identify such changes and take action to turn things around, or to delegate such actions to others. If that is not the responsibility of the delegates or the FA Director, then whose is it? The easy answer is "everyone", but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that someone should have responsibility for managing other parts of the process and ensuring a pool of experienced reviewers, and putting the structure in place for mentoring and training new reviewers (and providing feedback to nominators as well). This doesn't have to be tied to the responsibility of promoting nominations, but someone should be doing it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications edit

(in progress)

  • Central notifications [3]
  • Village Pump
  • Featured Articles
    • FAC
    • TFA
    • FAR
  • Good Article Nominations
  • DYK
  • MilHist
  • GOCE
  • WPBFAN members
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Make_Featured_Article_leaders_elected_(RFC)&oldid=1088117471"