Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 5

message: Walkerma suggested I post this here: User:TidyCat/Achieving_validation_on_Wikipedia.  It's a detailed analysis of the subject of article validation, along with several ideas about how it might be achieved.  I would greatly appreciate any feedback. --TidyCat 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a thorough reading tomorrow, but looks good so far.  I don't know if you've seen Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wiki_Sort, but the ideas seem similar.the1physicist 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have commented on your proposal on its talk page.the1physicist 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I found TidyCat's analysis to be an excellent summary of all the discussions about article validation. I will re-read tomorrow and make my comments about the proposals. Thanks for an excellent job. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achieving validation on Wikipedia 

message: Maybe there could be a collaboration of the month to work on Core Topics which should be FA status? Comments? Gflores Talk 00:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea, as long as we can get people who will write material. I must admit to being rather disappointed with the main Wikipedia COTW.  In assessing core topics articles I found humanities to be a stub, so I nominated it for COTW and I was thrilled to see it get around 18 supporters; it became COTW for last week.  However I (a chemist!!!) was the only registered user except one to make any significant contribution to the article, largely because as the nominator I felt obliged to write something.  If we can get 3 or 4 people who are willing to WRITE content (not just discuss it), then this would be a great way to get some of the weakest articles looking at least B-Class ("usable").  Unfortunately myself I feel very stretched already covering assessments on two sub-projects.  Can interested people sign up at the end of this section? Walkerma 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better to work through the general WP:COTW and, for nonstubs WP:AID? That's what I was trying to do when I was here more. Maurreen (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a rudimentary Core Topics Collaboration of the Week at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTW Please join us! Maurreen (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the month? 

message: This is sort of like a "late submission", but not really, since this project is not really on a timeline or has a deadline. I have an idea that wouuld probably work pretty well, but it needs some work that I can't do.
# A new version of MediaWiki needs to be released that has the "Special:PopularPages" feature
# The first x most popular pages (I think probably 1,000 or 1,500) all need to be listed in a table (excluding, of course, Wikipedia:, User:, and other such pages)
# Each page on the table will be checked for factual accuracy, and the checked version will be archived on a subpaged
Does this sound good/possible? -AtionSong 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea sounds reasonable to me, and the addition of a "most popular pages" feature would be nice.  However I wouldn't know how to go about getting a software change like that done.  Currently we only have Special:Mostlinked which is not the same thing at all.  If you can get the change done, we could set up a sub-project to work on it, it would complement the core topics and make sure we didn't miss out any popular articles.  One comment, though - I seem to recall one time stumbling across a list of "most popular Google searches for Wikipedia" and other than the obvious #1 search for Wikipedia itself, the most popular by far was pornography!  The lesson is, most popular does not always mean the most appropriate choice! Let us know if you can get the software change done, and we can help with the articles. Walkerma 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Any page like a "Special:PopularPages" would have to be visible only to admins. Otherwise they'd immediately become a major target for vandals. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not really sure that would be technically feasible. MediaWiki had a page view counter that would have been useful for this kind of thing, but it was turned off because trying to run it with the squid network configuration we're running would cause huge lags when writing the access logs in the database. I imagine that something like Special:Popularpages would have to run in a similar manner, obtaining page hits from all the squids in order to get an accurate reading, which is exactly what got disabled. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Nother Idea