Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Nominations/Archive 1

message: This section was copied from the [main talk page]. Maurreen 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hopefully tonight I'll be able to answer more. Maurreen 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Martin, you suggested  "Important" as criteria. But I think we need more defined standards for nomination eligibility (vagueness is OK for qualification standards). Maurreen 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About dates -- at least for this overall project, you prefer more planning than I do. Why don't we compromise by using your dates, but as a loose tentative goal? Maurreen 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One good measure would be the relative "stability" of an article as well as the number of edits. TRhe premise being that an artile that had considerable attention by a considerablne number of editors over a period of time, could be considered ready-to-publish. I would argue that such an article regardless of any "cruft", must be deemed "important". ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree with jossi. There are many excellent articles that might be considered "cruft," but are nevertheless well-written. Surely there is a place for some of them in a print version of Wikipedia. Besides, we aren't a traditional encyclopedia, are we? ;). As for deadlines, I would agree with them not being strict, but gathering momentum is always a problem. Although, letting people nominate articles FAC style looks like a good way to encourage participation.--Shanel 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that many crufty articles should go in (probably even into 1.0), but in a release of 2000 articles (WP 0.5?) we need to make sure we cover the major topics first.  I think we would look silly if (for example) we had Starfleet ranks and insignia (a former FAC) included but we didn't include Science fiction.  Despite that, my dream is to see a WP release that includes both.  I agree that importance (like "notability") is in the eye of the beholder, but I think we will be in a better position to judge that once we have contacted the WikiProjects a second time to get their lists of most important topics, and we have put together some trees to go beneath the core topics tree.  I do think a deadline is a good thing, because we are going to need a cutoff point to go to press anyway.  If we have 2000 articles together and organised - sure, we can wait a week and get 2050 articles, but that will growth never end.  We should have a proposed cutoff date, and once we have everything organised for publication and we are just adding more articles we can make that date (or a later one) a firm date.  If your article missed release 0.80, then just wait three months for release 0.81 (or 0.9, whatever). Walkerma 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this approach and agree that a deadline is a good idea.  I'm not sure I understand why we would want to include crufty articles.  I had thought that the whole idea of WP 1.0 was to establish a core of "good" articles.  Have I missed something? Sunray 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial discussion

message: ===Introduction===
This is a proposal for method to determine entries (articles and lists) for a release version of Wikipedia (a set suitable for publishing on fixed media, such as paper, CD or DVD). 
Conceivably, we could achieve a suitable set by Sept. 1 and publish before Christmas.
Qualified entries should combine quality and importance of topic. But these traits should be considered relative to other qualified entries.
The basic procedure is similar to that for featured article candidates.
For entries to be designated as qualified, they would need to gain five positive votes for every negative vote (yeah, we know "voting is evil", but let's be realistic).
For subsequent release versions from this project, the community would also decide whether an entry should be removed or replaced. 
===Nomination details===
If you nominate something you have worked on, please note it as a self-nomination. Please do not place more than one nomination at a time —- this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Nominations should be signed and dated and should include a link showing that the entry meets the criteria. Ineligible nominations would be removed. 
;Nomination eligibility 
:This would gradually widen. But to get the cream of the crop, we could start by requiring all nominees to be one of the following:
*Continent or country article
*Core topic article
*Featured article
*Featured list
===Response to nomination===
If you believe an article meets all of the criteria, write Support followed by your reasons. 
If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Objections may be based on either quality or importance. Everyone objecting for a given entry should suggest corrective action (for lack of a better phrase) -- that is, improvements needed in the quality or more-important entries needed first.
To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it. 
===Miscellaneous===
Further standards and guidelines may also be developed for nominations and qualifying.
Version identifying information will be recorded for qualified entries. The qualifying version may be stored on a subpage and extraneous links may be removed.
;Templates we might use:
*Entries eligible for nomination.
*Entries nominated.
*Entries found qualifed.
*Entries found not qualified for now.
Maurreen 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft proposal

message: Further standards and guidelines may also be developed for nominations and qualifying.
Version identifying information will be recorded for qualified entries. The qualifying version may be stored on a subpage and extraneous links may be removed.
;Templates we might use:
*Entries eligible for nomination.
*Entries nominated.
*Entries found qualifed.
*Entries found not qualified for now.
Maurreen 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: One key need for a release version is to try to ensure that every article, that needs it, receives professional reviews. Most probably, through WP's community review processes, some articles have already become relatively free of errors. However, some articles, even some FA and GA approved articles, probably would benefit from professional reviews. Here are some possible ways to organize this:
Professional review short cuts & strategies
# General outreach Get the ball rolling by promoting the need for professional reviews -- as in forming it as a project or listing it at the top of relevant project pages as a work item. 
# Involve existing projects: The Scientific peer review group is forming and there is Peer review. Request their input. Ideas (and help perhaps) will come. 
# Summarize FA professional review discussions: Eventually, a professional review process probably needs to be part of the feature article review process. People have probably discussed this. What has been come up with?
# Subset: Tackle chunks of articles, such as the geography subset. This is a key strategy. It gets the ball rolling in a test case. 
# Triage: Surely many of the more recently completed FAs are in good shape. Verify this. This is another key strategy. Organize a preliminary assessment: invite a few experts to do a "quick" triage of some article categories that are well developed. (Astronomy might be one. What are others?) Request "triage" reviewers to rate articles by quality as in: (a) fairly error free, (b) needing minor or some revisions, and (c) needing major work.  Then, recruit professional reviews for the articles needing minor revisions. Recommend articles with major problems be taken off various approved lists. I think this triage assessment could be a high priority. One would eventually want redundant triage reviewing. Probably, a number of specialized wikipedian reviewers already know what is clean. We need to request that knowledge be recorded and then organize it in one place and then fill in gaps. 
# Track reviews: There needs to be a table for all professionally reviewed articles and articles yet to review (with FA/GA quality article nominations approved by some group) that records: the reviewer, a link to the review(s) (at least 2 reviews needed for each article, perhaps more or a community discussion if POV issues come up), perhaps a summary of major issues, check off on editing completed, a link to the final article version, and dates that review and editing are completed. (Anonymous review doesn't seem doable on the net.) Having a table will make it easy for reviewers to dive in. Perhaps a table (even database, as numbers of reviewed articles increase) format could be programmed and then shared with active topic area wikiprojects.
# Series of Betas with parallel Long-term quality review plan: Simultaneously pursue two strategies in publishing WP collections: (a) Subset beta-versions that are published with a prominent disclaimer as being articles-in-development. (Recruit reviews for as many of the betas as possible, but don't let it slow up Beta publication of articles that pass some sort of release qualifying process, seperate from the professional review.) (b) Begin building a long term process of recruiting professional reviews, as integral to RQ review, that aims to "verify" and achieve Britannica-or-better article quality. 
# Engage academic classes and communities: Invite and recruit academics to invite their advanced grad students to review articles. Some students will find a home in WP. This is already happening, yes? Priority: repeatedly notify academic/professional wikipedians and actively supportive academics about the need for professional reviews and where to dive in. 
# Main page link: When the professional review process is developed, post an invite and (sub)project link on the main page.
Given time, outreach and community building, a professional review process will grow (and is growing already) organically in the Wikipedia community in synergy with existing projects. Comments? --Vir 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Thanks :) --Vir 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruiting professional reviews: Short cuts and strategies 

message: [An expansion of the ideas for this proposed process was created by AtionSong here Three Level Editing.] 
Just a process as we move closer to executing a .5 or 1.0 plan.
For an article to get a .5 or 1.0 rating, it should go through the following system:
* A version of the artical as it is when the process begins is archived, and this is the article edited on. No edits related to this are made to the active article, and nobody can edit the archived version except the 3 selected editors. The archived article then goes through 3 levels of editing:
* LEVEL 1: At level 1, an editor who is not necessarily an expert on the subject content would read through the article for, and make corrections to:
** Neutral Point of View
** Correct Spelling, grammar, usage, and other mechanics.
** The article is organized in a logical way
** Proper format
* LEVEL 2: Once the article has passed through level 1, a level two editor who is an expert on the topic would check the article for:
** Correct facts
** Adequate content
** Adequate linkage to other related articles
** Logical sequencing and organization
** Artical is correctly categorized as well as categorized adequately
* LEVEL 3: Once the article has passed through level 2, a final level 3 editor who is possibly an expert on the topic, or that general topic (e.x. not a specific band, but a perhaps a specific genre, but not just on "music) would check the article for:
** Correct, appropriate, and/or adequate references cited
** No copyright violations on images or content
** Controversial language or facts not related to NPOV
** Artical is visually appealing
If an article has any problem that is not immediately fixable at any of the levels (e.x. not a neutral point of view), the archived version should be deleted, and the active article should be tagged. The article can then be archived for editing again when the problem is fixed.
Once an artical has been passed through all 3 levels, the archived version should be protected, and tagged as .5 or 1.0 ready. Does this sound like a good idea? -AtionSong 21:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think your plan is not now practical, mainly because of the limited number of people we have working on this. I'm a big believer in simplicity. Maurreen 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the proposal, AtionSong.  I'm also a great believer in simplicity, and I'm also very much aware of our limited (though growing) number of active members, so I have a lot in common with Maurreen on that.  However I do think that the idea will be a very good one to consider as the WP1.0 project matures (I'm thinking here of WP:2.0) and so we should keep it in mind.  Also, I think we can include elements of this idea even in WP1.0.  For example, I notice that Tito proposed a similar "final check by an expert" in his "roadmap" above - we could try to do something like this for at least some articles, particularly if the new scientific peer review initiative gets off the ground.  The Work via WikiProjects people (such as myself) are also in contact with subject experts. Thanks, Walkerma 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that recruiting expert reviews, even by specialists, is quite doable. It is a matter of defining some processes and of doing outreach. The 1.0 project will grow in size and input. I'm not sure about the exact process above, but specialist reviews are very much needed. More than one expert review per article would be good. One process that could facilitate this is, through various media, to invite experts to participate in, not only in a scientific review project or 1.0 project, but also in discipline-related wikiprojects to improve articles. Some reviewers might prefer to work independently too. Other ideas are mentioned in the post just above this. Vir 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposed Process For Editing 

message: Maybe any given nomination could be active for about a week, depending on level of response and consensus. But I'm very open about this. Maurreen 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of time any nomination is active

message: I might take a break. Maurreen 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break