Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 7

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

• Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team archive
• Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team objections archive
• Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team archive2

Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

New main page for WP:1.0?

I have prepared a test version of a new main page for this project, but since this is a massive change to an important page I wanted to let people take a look and edit it before I upload it. I have felt for a long time that our main page was outdated - it talks about many things we have already done as if they were mere proposals, and doesn't reflect the current situation as it has evolved. Most of our active members were not even involved when the current main page was put together, yet their views are having a major effect on the direction of this project. We have (I believe) reached a consensus among our active members about many of the major issues, and this should be presented right up front as our strategy & roadmap, and not just buried in old discussions on many different pages. Disagreements remain, but we have much more that we agree about.

I have tried to be as balanced as possible in putting the page together, and indeed there are things I would like (for myself) to have written differently. But I have tried to take into account the ideas and opinions of all of the active members, whose comments I have been soliciting for two months now. I have focussed on defining areas where we have wide agreement, and left open areas where we disagree (surprisingly few, IMHO). Time will probably resolve most of these disagreements as we move forward, anyway. Please take a look at this page, give comments and edit it - but please be sensitive to others' opinions. Walkerma 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant to mention - I plan to produce a navigation box to go at the bottom of the page to replace the "related pages" section. It would be entitled something like "Article assessment, validation and peer review" and link to things like GA, FA, AA, PR, Stable, etc., and we could place this on all of those pages (if they're OK with it) to help coordinate our work with theirs. Walkerma 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the table you made for the user names is a great idea and should definitely be used in the future. However, the two constructive criticisms I would make are:

a) I really like the table we have right now for the different projects instead of just a list
b) Although everything you said at the top of the page is true and helpful, having a lot of text at the top of a project page can really turn off new potential members. I would recommend that if we keep the text we either move it to a different page or the bottom of the page.
Despite my criticisms, I do want to let you know that it is a good design. -AtionSong 14:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for doing that. I made some changes; please let me know what you think. Maurreen 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I like it. I think the participants table is too big though. Maybe the talk page column can be joined with the name column (Gflores talk). I like your navigation box idea too. Should there be a specific todo somewhere (either there or on the talk page). For example, of recent interest is expanding and categorizing the core topics and asking for worklists. I guess that's kind of in the Status section. Thanks for doing it. :) Gflores ^Talk 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, is now the time to discuss, include or link to any quality standards, such as maybe these that I proposed? Maurreen 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems what you're describing is an A-Class assessment with a few minor differences. I do like your first point about two (or more) people reviewing the article.

I think it should be better to merge those requirements with the assessment scale the WikiProjects use. One of the main problems I see is that there are pages with conflicting information or repeated information... condensing things could be very helpful. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I tried to incorporate AtionSong's suggestions, I hope people like this slightly revised version. However the projects table wouldn't work well right near the top as it would get in the way of the NavBox. I also think it's good to have strategy and status near the top, anyway - lots of people who are passing by this page are interested to know this stuff. I moved the longer "Stages to Publication" down, though, so the project box is quite a bit nearer the top. I hope this new page will serve us well, but as ever, please feel free to edit. Once the proposed projects begin work, perhaps their coordinators can integrate them into the table. I will be rather quieter over the next 2 weeks or so (though still checking in regularly), but I really wanted to get this revision up before I went on the road. Walkerma 05:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Regarding the quality standards, I deliberately left this vague on the main page for the time being. I suspect that we all have a similar view of what we're aiming for, and we can discuss the fine details of it as a separate issue. We perhaps need to integrate A-Class with Maurreen's criteria and GA criteria. We can put this on the main page once we agree on exact wording. Walkerma 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone notice...

That the right hand navigation box on the top of the page with the CD in it is overlapping part of the first paragraph of the project article in Internet Explorer? Perhaps that can be fixed somehow?

Thanks! In my version of IE it didn't cut off any text, though it came close. I removed the shortcut notice that seemed to cause the problem, though this will need to go back in somewhere. Is there a way of putting in a shortcut notice on the left instead? That would avoid this problem. Walkerma 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging quality standards

Another thing that should be done to further streamline the project is to adopt a uniform grading scheme. There are two grading schemes in use so far: the one at Proposed initial quality standards and the second one at Template:Grading scheme. I've merged a few things from the proposal into the template, but there's a few things that I'd like to discuss.

1. Should an article's style and visual appeal be considered a necessary feature of A-Class articles, or B-Class articles?
2. What exactly are we talking about by "scope and proportion"? Surely not the devil of notability, I hope...
3. Is a single reference enough for an A-Class article?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the two sets of standards serve two different purposes (which isn't to say either or both couldn't be improved). Martin's grading scheme (if you're talking about the four different classes) I think is mainly intended to denote various levels, to indicate what needs more or less improvement. The Proposed initial quality standards was intended as a guideline for what is level of quality is good enough for 1.0. If I remember right, I think Martin had a good idea about possibly merging that with the Wikipedia:Good article standards.

About No. 2, the "adequate scope and proportion" -- I wasn't referring to the topic of the article, but what is covered within the article. That is, all the major bases of subtopics should be in the article in an amount that makes sense within the article (but the article is not required to be fully comprehensive, as would be needed for a Wikipedia:Featured articles).

For instance, if the article was Natural disaster, it would cover different types, and noteworthy disasters, but it wouldn't be focused on a particular type, or place, or the most recent disasters. Hope that is helpful.

I don't have an opinion right now on No. 1 and 3. Maurreen 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake, that was your suggestion about merging. Maurreen 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection

It might help to have a look at 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection where a group of volunteers for a charity have gone through some of this process and produced a 2000 article selection for UK schools (as a free download).

Unsigned post by BozMo

I moved the rest of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Test Version. Hope that's OK. Maurreen 07:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Release Version Qualifying"

In case we haven't seen enough strategies ...

I'm hoping this one synthesizes many of the ideas, values and approaches that different people have brought to the project -- plus make good use of the multitude of Wikipedians.

Essentially, I'm thinking we could set up something roughly like WP:FAC. People would nominate articles or lists for inclusion. The community would consider each entry's quality and relative importance, and the community would decide whether to include the entry in the release version.

And for subsequent release versions, the community would also decide whether an entry should be removed or replaced. To guard against deterioration, at least the date of the qualification should probably be recorded.

We would set an eligibilty threshold, which would gradually lower. Possible thresholds include FA, FL, GA, core topics, countries.

And then when we get enough entries, we proceed to publish.

I'm biased, but I'm excited about this. Maurreen 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, Maurreen, I'm surprised we didn't think of this earlier! I think it sounds like an excellent idea, well done! We will be contacting all the WikiProjects again soon, should we say, "Which articles in your subject area should be on the CD?" I think I would like to decide on a publication DATE, since people are used to the idea that WP1.0 is at some point indefinitely in the future, perhaps years away. If we said that we wanted to catch the Christmas market by having a cutoff for entries by (say) Friday, September 1, 2006, I think people would focus their attention on it more. We would have ask them to nominate a specific version of each article, too, and perhaps ask them to update it if necessary right before the cutoff date. Your criteria sound excellent, though I would add another, namely "importance." Our first release is likely to be 2000 or so, so we don't have room for fancruft and the like - though I think bigger releases should include some fancruft and roadcruft if the quality is there. Walkerma 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am really surprised myself we didn't think of it before! I made a subproject page and am copying your comments. We can discuss the details there. Maurreen 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Another round of review would be good to insure quality of articles. Group approval be a good way to let articles in. Some GA and even early FA articles do not meet their own project's criteria. A Released article will be seen as vetted by Wikipedia (unless we qualify prominently in the release introduction that the articles are works in progress, with possible errors -- and if they are faulty, why release them?). We are talking about a fixed set of articles for publication here -- one that is going to be around a long ltime. So, ideally, high quality needs to be assured as much as is possible. Or, Wikipedia will be raked over the coals for releasing poor quality and inaccurate information.

So, sigh, I get to sound like a hard ass now. Here is part of one way a Release Quality review could be done: I might be in the minority, but I think a Release Quality review should have an even more stringent review standard than FA, and be considered a more rigorous step that follows FA approval. For instance, if it has not already been done for an article, I think clear notation of a review by a professional with expertise in the area of an article should be noted. Ideally, all potentially controversial points should be footnoted. After that review, then the article would be ready for community consideration for RQ status. After attaining RQ status: All footnotes should be fact checked. After that, a final copy edit and proofing should be done. (Why not before? Well, that is a lot of review work. You don't want to repeat it again and again, as some articles will pass professional review but not group review.) During the professional review, voting, and final copyedit/proofing, perhaps an article should be frozen for 2 weeks or a month, allowing the final review and editing work. The steps would be: 1) final very thorough professional review, 2) RQ status approval by 1.0 group, 3) final copy edit and proofing. I can see some of this might not be implemented. But, it is one good way to ensure Britannica-level or better quality in release versions, without creating forked article versions. In general, I think a 2006 release might be ambitious for reviewing a large number of articles.

Another point: I work in the GA project -- I think it is a valuable project. But, i see that project as identifying a pool of articles of ok quality for web readership and to further improve, not for final release. In many cases, GA articles are probably not ready for final vetting. Some FA articles that I've reviewed are not ready either. Would a community review only catch all errors? For general points, often. For technical points, probably not. A documented technical review by a professional in the area is needed after FA status is achieved (for at least some articles -- not sure how to determine that). If a professional review is done before or as part of FA status approval, fine -- then double checking that no major points are changed would be easier. --Vir 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps. I just saw AtionSong's comment above, "A Proposed Process For Editing." You disagreed with it. I agree with something like AtionSong's process. A fixed media is very different from a fluid wiki, which is forgiving of errors. Fixed media are unforgiving, hence require a higher standard. Simplicity in review is not needed. Expertise is needed. If not AtionSong's process, then, at the very least, there needs to be a documented professional review. I think that should be an independent review -- with others doing any corrections -- which are vetted by the reviewer. Imho, having someone reasonably familiar review technical aspects of articles is not a high enough bar. This is the Internet, which brings a very wide editorial volunteer crew base -- the problem is outreach. The project can grow to meet a higher standard. -- --Vir 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pps. Thinking more about academic review: for review of grant proposals, articles, and books, a standard practice is to have two expert reviews, often anonymous. That seems impractical on the web. Indeed, without having professional relationships established, one probably wants to know who is reviewing (for NPOV purposes, but also for quality of review -- and to give community thanks and network, growing more community involvement). Is expert review doable? Yes, it is a matter of setting the goal and doing outreach. It would be much easier to do first on something like the pilot project you floated of an atlas of geographical topics. Then you need only a small circle of experts and you can test the process. Meanwhile, now that someone is out the door with a WP article CD -- there is no rush. Indeed, the 1.0 project could consider take its time to consider what was done right and wrong on that -- and to try ways to recruit experts. --Vir 23:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Vir, thanks for your thoughts. I understand this better than I usually understand you.

The extensive review that you suggest would have value, but I doubt it would happen on a volunteer project such as this.

Also, a subproject page has been started. You can copy your remarks and other follow-up there, if you like. Maurreen 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. OK, sometime later, I'll organize the above comments and post those on the RQ subproject page. I think professional reviews could happen as a volunteer process. The key ingredients are community building and time, lots of it: Since, for articles with problems, it take a lot of time to write up a technical review (and then more time to have debates about write up of any controversial issues). However, there are some short cuts and effective strategies for recruiting professional reviews and ensuring quality. I'm posting some ideas in this line on the subpage. --Vir 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Project page intro

I should have done this earlier, but I'd like to suggest tweaking the intro.

It now says:

"The goal of this Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team is to collaborate and identify a set of articles that would be suitable for release in print, CD and DVD, based on a 2003 proposal by Jimbo Wales. This may involve improving or maintaining selected articles. Our work will not affect the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles. We are aiming to begin with a set of quality articles on key subjects (core topics) and to build a full encyclopedia from this base."

I suggest changing that to:

"The goal of this Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team is to work toward a set of articles suitable for release in print, CD, DVD, or some combination. This may involve identifying, improving or maintaining selected articles. In 2003, Jimbo Wales proposed making a release version. Our work will not affect ..." and so forth. Maurreen 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I think your version reads much better (and I think I wrote the original version!), please change it. Walkerma 21:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)