Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 3

message: *Only articles that meet the Good Article Criteria should be granted Good Article status.
:Agree, although I think this position risks pushing "the problem" back into defining exactly what does meet the GA criteria. — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yea, I mean, it would compleatly undermine the system if the standards could just be ignored :/ Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I third it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone's disagreeing it seems (and not me). --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The criterias are important and it would be bad i.e. to have an unstable article listed. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 on the agree roster here. Netscott 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, but the problem may come in determining what's "impartial reviewing" and what's not. — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not quite so sure what "impartial reviewing" means here either, impartial in terms of you haven't edited something substantially, or impartial as in Christians can't pass Christian articles or something, this needs clarification. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to "if I haven't contributed I can review".. I'm not going for "I videogames, I can't." Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Having a strong POV on an article might reduce the judgement quality. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 on the agree roster here. Netscott 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, although those who have not contributed to the article may not be aware of all the issues relevant to determining whether or not the article itself is impartial/meets GA criteria. (Note that I have made a minor grammatical correction to this question.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, i'd say yes to this. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is easier. I reckon that it's the only workable way to determine "impartiality" here at Wikipedia. It might not be a perfect way, but propably the best available way. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Contributing to an article easily results in some kind of affection towards it. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Contibuting to an article and it having been determined by a super-majority to include content that you don't agree with would tend to incline one to not want it to recieve Good Article status regardless of whether or not it merited it. Netscott 16:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree it is possible for some signficant contributors; disagree it is possible for all significant contributors. Sometimes it is impossible for people to be impartial, as they are unaware of their own biases, or feel compelled to act in a biased fashion for reasons more important to them than the concept of impartiality. — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sure its possible, but I don't think its worth assuming this and then implementing such an idea for the GA system, it could cause more edit wars. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To an extent, but not to the standard of those who are completely neutral. You could view a paragraph you wrote with no analytical subconsciously, and how on earth can you see your own grammatical mistakes? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I once thought (read:hoped) that partiality could be overcome no matter the level of involvement, I don't anymore. Only a very few people (if any) have that ability. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Even a contributing editor can check the criterias and i.e. find out, that there are many revert wars. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. While in theory it is possible, in reality it is not possible for a thrid party to know if a major contributor is indeed impartial. Netscott 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. (See above answer to third question.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but anyone can understand an article. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They may (if they aren't too blinded by their POV), but in my opinion the GA-standard is not that high that it require beforehand intimate understanding of the subject to judge it correctly. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Editors, who have not contributed, might not be that interested on the articles topic at all. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree in principal, but this is why the Good Article dispute process exists whereby such editors can expound on the reasoning for an article not meriting Good Article status. Also I agree with Anjoe and Homestarmy's sentiments. Netscott 17:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. — JEREMY 12:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considered sure, especially for the disputes page, otherwise you might not be even getting the whole picture. But considered in terms of single veto if somebody simply doesn't like the direction an article, that doesn't seem fair. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand them, sure. Should they affect a review? No. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their opnions should be considered, but they should not be able to act or even vote on the matter. - This way we can  harvest their expertise (se above) but avoid their POV. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Everybodys opinion is important in Wikipedia culture. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Homestarmy, Highway and Anjoe's opinions.  Netscott 17:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with respect to granting GA; disagree with respect to failing GA. (I would point to my second comment above to justify this position fully, but essentially I believe it's very important that no article which is in a "contentious" state be granted GA.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with it all. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and in my opinion their votes should not even count in a dispute - although they can try to influence others all they want (but that may be another matter). --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Nobody alone should have the final decision on granting Good Article status. But everybody should agree, that the article is good for granting it Good Article status. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% Agree, it is not possible for a third independent party to be 100% sure of a major contributor's impartiality and as such thier ability to determine a grant/fail should be negated. Netscott 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree with respect to granting GA; agree with respect to failing GA. I doubt it's possible to "demonstrate impartiality" to everyone's satisfaction. (Note that I have made a minor typo-correction to this question.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I don't see how it should matter, its not like GA is some horribly necessary system that articles absolutly need immedietly or they'll be doomed forever or something, this system is all still relatively informal. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Who would be deemed impartial would be too complicated and too coincidental otherwise. Above on this talkpage TheGrappler made the good point that although the GA-process may not be a substitute for peer review, it still commonly works to the same effect. But this can only be possible if a) there is a impartial review proces in place here, and b) that an article in fact is not removed before it gets to be impartially reviewed. And remember: It is always possible for some other impartial editor to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes and delist or complain if an article wrongly has been listed as Good. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. They should be able to fail it, but not be able to pass it. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% Disagree. How is a third independent party going to be able to determine a major contributor's impartiality without being intimately aware of thier actions? This puts too much onus on the third party to know the full story. Best to have the benefit of the doubt be on the probably partial side of the scale. Netscott 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for bringing this to discussion, Anjoe.  I agree that the method of Raphael1 expressing his comments is a bit unorthodox.  However, all opinions in this discussion are important; others not participating may have the same opinions as Raphael1, and I do not feel they should be reverted.  Unless there are truly any major objections, I suggest that we leave Raphael1's comments as they are, but in any final voting on a decision, do not allow him to vote.  Does this sound appropriate to everyone? -- Natalya 14:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Natalya, thank you for recognising the importance of all opinions. However, I'm unclear why Raphael1 should be excluded from decision-making (which I'd be disappointed to see occur by simple voting, after all this careful conflict-resolution stuff) on the basis of behaviour unrelated to this discussion. In any case, his block is set to expire early on Saturday morning; do you see any likelihood we'll be in a position to be making final decisions before then? — JEREMY 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm impartial here but this seems to me a clear-cut case. Of course her opinions should be noted and taken into consideration. But, if this is voted on at all and the voting is before her block runs out, she shouldn't be able to vote. She committed such-and-such violation of policy, so she relinquished her rights to edit. Regards, --Celestianpower háblame 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anjoe, the alternative was to wait until Raphael1's block expired (there's no time-limit on this mediation after all), and I for one would rather we could all move on with this. Surely you'd prefer to see the greatest possible diversity of opinion represented in discussions of this nature, in order to improve the chance (however slim) that we'll actually think of everything? — JEREMY 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, call me oldfashioned for prefering the alternative of himself posting his own comments. But in any case: I have put a small description on the above pasted comments so people at least can go check that you pasted correctly and so that admins don't get too confused over a blocked person suddenly editing. I hope it's alright to use your alias in the descriptor, - I don't want people to think that it was me doing the cut n' paste. /--Anjoe 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer he could post too, but that would require either that we waited, or that certain admins had been prepared to recuse themselves from judging block durations on the basis of conflicted interest. As for the tagging, I don't have a problem with it, but thanks for asking. — JEREMY 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Opinions

message: I can see that Jeremygbyrne has pasted in the comments of Raphael1 from User_talk:Raphael1#Please respond to mediation, because Raphael1 could not himself since he has been blocked until 11:54, 6 May 2006. First I wanted to revert immediately, but in the spririt of this informal mediation I will post this protest first: There should be some consequences of being bloked - one of those being that you cannot weigh in or vote on matters any other place than on your user-talk page. Raphael1 has been blocked because of his systematic disruption in violation of consensus on a specific matter. Why should we let him comment here by middleman when we obviously should be concerned whether he will respect the result of the mediation if it goes against him? Isn't it like making a mockery of this whole excerzise (and of him being bloked - by several admins, should I add). I hope Jeremygbyrne will realize that this is only common sense and revert himself. --Anjoe 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this to discussion, Anjoe.  I agree that the method of Raphael1 expressing his comments is a bit unorthodox.  However, all opinions in this discussion are important; others not participating may have the same opinions as Raphael1, and I do not feel they should be reverted.  Unless there are truly any major objections, I suggest that we leave Raphael1's comments as they are, but in any final voting on a decision, do not allow him to vote.  Does this sound appropriate to everyone? -- Natalya 14:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Natalya, thank you for recognising the importance of all opinions. However, I'm unclear why Raphael1 should be excluded from decision-making (which I'd be disappointed to see occur by simple voting, after all this careful conflict-resolution stuff) on the basis of behaviour unrelated to this discussion. In any case, his block is set to expire early on Saturday morning; do you see any likelihood we'll be in a position to be making final decisions before then? — JEREMY 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm impartial here but this seems to me a clear-cut case. Of course her opinions should be noted and taken into consideration. But, if this is voted on at all and the voting is before her block runs out, she shouldn't be able to vote. She committed such-and-such violation of policy, so she relinquished her rights to edit. Regards, --Celestianpower háblame 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anjoe, the alternative was to wait until Raphael1's block expired (there's no time-limit on this mediation after all), and I for one would rather we could all move on with this. Surely you'd prefer to see the greatest possible diversity of opinion represented in discussions of this nature, in order to improve the chance (however slim) that we'll actually think of everything? — JEREMY 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, call me oldfashioned for prefering the alternative of himself posting his own comments. But in any case: I have put a small description on the above pasted comments so people at least can go check that you pasted correctly and so that admins don't get too confused over a blocked person suddenly editing. I hope it's alright to use your alias in the descriptor, - I don't want people to think that it was me doing the cut n' paste. /--Anjoe 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer he could post too, but that would require either that we waited, or that certain admins had been prepared to recuse themselves from judging block durations on the basis of conflicted interest. As for the tagging, I don't have a problem with it, but thanks for asking. — JEREMY 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the pasting in of Raphael1's comments

message: From the discussion, the only real disagreement we have to deal with is significant contributors being able to fail articles.  Although that's what the discussion started out as, it escalated into a larger discussion, so it is good that the problem has been re-narrowed down to what it originally started with.
Viewpoints have been narrowed down.  One side is that significant contributors should not be able to fail articles, and if there is a disagreement, they can use the disputes page.  The other side is that significant contributors should be able to fail articles outright.  Although these are different viewpoints, I've seen all of the participating users show respect and a willingness to discuss; therefore, I believe that a good compromise can be arrived upon. -- Natalya 02:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natalya's observations

message: Well if a comprimise gets too convoluted, it won't really be worth it for such an ordinarily informal system :/. Homestarmy 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I think you are identifying a feature as a bug. — JEREMY 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the solution is inferior because it allows the imposition of GA status in a situation in which it might seriously disaffect a significant contributor to an article. Veto powers prevents this. It is always easier to accept a situation in which something you like is not considered exemplary by everyone, than it is to accept a situation in which something you are unable to tolerate is represented as exemplary by others. — JEREMY 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Natalya, I'm unable to discern any significant difference between your suggestion that we "don't allow significant contributors to fail articles themselves, but give them an opportunity to voice their concerns before the decision is made" and the positions advocated by the editors lobbying to change the GA criteria. (In fact, it appears to offer less than the additions suggested by Anjoe, by implying not only that the veto will be removed, but that significant contributors might now be prevented from voicing their concerns at certain unspecified stages of the procedure other than "before the decision is made".) Can you please explain how you think your suggestion addresses the concerns I have outlined in my defence of the status quo position to date? — JEREMY 02:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to my question immediately above, I'm afraid I must object to your summary of the commonalities in this discussion, specifically "At the same time, we don't want articles to be unduly failed." I am personally happy (or at least, sanguine) about articles being failed for any reason whatsoever. I realise my position is not in accord with the position represented in the current GA criteria — which require that an article not meet certain tests before being eligible to be failed — but it's something I personally feel quite strongly about. However, rather than advocating for my simpler, more open solution, I have been prepared to leave the consensus position as previously established by the editors who put the GA criteria together unchallenged, in the interests of compromise. — JEREMY 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, Jeremy, you are fine with leaving the criteria as they stand?  (I am assuming yes, with your previous comment "This is the default position, and I'm yet to hear convincing argument that changing it will improve the project.").  This is a possibility, though I am not sure how much your fellow mediation-participants will agree, what with the concerns that have been brought up.  Still, it would be good to just see what the current opinions on the subject are.  For everyone, what are your current thoughts on leaving the passing/failing criteria (as seen at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations) as they currently stand? -- Natalya 12:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would prefer the current rules to the rather complex and formal solution put forward by Jeremy, which doesn't really solve anything. --Anjoe 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution suggestions