Wikipedia talk:Article of the week

message: Just a quick note to say I really had fun reading each of these articles (OK, I skimmed a few ;-) trying to decide if I was going to vote to support them. I like the format: vote "support" for those you like, and maybe leave a brief comment saying why. If an article doesn't catch your fancy, then just pass on to the next one. It took about 5 minutes per article, on average. I learned a bit about each topic, and gained a bit of insight into how editors of other parts of Wikipedia craft their articles. Thanks for setting this up! (Sdsds - Talk) 07:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having fun! 

message: What on earth is the point of this, other than more bureaucracy and red tape? There exists no objective way of stating that any featured article is better than any other. >Radiant< 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  For an article to be featured it must meet the Featured Article Criteria which almost mirror the criteria of the perfect article.  How can one article be more perfect than another?  Another problem I have with this is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration, not a competition.  For every featured article that becomes "best of the week" there may be several that didn't.  I for one don't want to see the community sending a message that could be interpreted as "well, you tried your best but your best wasn't good enough.  Your contributions just aren't as good as XXX's.  You're a loser".  That is in effect what this is a proposal for; it's totally against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Waggers 11:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must confess that I don't get it either. One FA's quality should be virtually indistinguishable from that of another. Moreschi  Talk 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on earth 

message: I have a simple question. This idea was pitched several times by me in the Villiage Pump, and no one objected to it. They all said something like, "Great Idea." You can find that pitch here. Why weren't any of these objections raised there, when the proposal was there almost 3-4 days before this page was built? Someone tell me that. Diez2 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one, the page doesn't tell what this is for other than to pick "the best article" whatever that is supposed to mean. It seems to me that this is just process for its own sake, no actual benefit is to be derived from this. Reject, whole heartedly, and without hesitation. I mostly agree with the comments above, this is a pointless waste of time and resources, me even commenting here is a pointless waste of time. This whole page should probably just be MfDed instead of even discussed. IvoShandor 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards Wikipedia in general: some users are contributors; others just consumers. As regards the FA process -- the same: some contribute to the FA process, some merely benefit from it post fact. Of course in time some people will move "up" the ladder. But look at it from the perspective of those of us still on the lower ladder rungs. Doesn't the belittling of efforts that encourage us to read newly created FAs seems counterproductive? (Sdsds - Talk) 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't meant as "belittling", quite the contrary. I think reading and reviewing articles is important, but if someone is going to read and review a number of FAs, then it strikes me that it would help the encyclopedia more if this effort were directed during the FA process than right after. Gimmetrow 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone here read the [[WP:VP]]? 

message: Finding Wikipedia's best article would be interesting. If Commons can do it with images, we can do it with FAs. Λυδαcιτγ 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that was already done, in a sense. One of User:Kingboyk's articles on The KLF won some recognition at last year's conference for favorite FA. John Carter 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article of a lifetime 

message: All other aspects judged as being equal, would it be better for an article to be popular or unpopular? Asked differently: is this a populist encyclopedia or an elitist one? (Sdsds - Talk) 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither.  It's (supposed to be) a neutral encyclopaedia.  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be popular nor to establish its users as "the elite".  To quote from the key policies section of WP:POLICY: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether."  So it really doesn't matter whether an article is popular or not, it only matters that the article accords with Wikipedia policies.  Our aim is to provide information, not to promote it. Waggers 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The merits of popularity 

message: Something that might be worthwhile is article of the year. This would be similar to various writing contests that have taken place in the past. Wikipedia:Danny's contest was one, I believe. The "...of the Month" and "...of the Week" proposals are too bureaucratic and detract from genuine efforts to improve the encyclopedia, in my opinion. In contrast, a "...of the Year" contest would reduce the effort to a one-off event every year, and might generate genuine, positive, publicity. I suggest both these proposals are merged and redirected to Wikipedia:Article of the year. Carcharoth 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we have picture of the year a few months back? I remember voting for a matchstick--Valley2city₪‽ 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a pretty good idea, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article of the Year? 

message: Congratulations on the good work done in rejecting this "proposal". The actions were fully consistent with Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:STEAM. (Sdsds - Talk) 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone can view this as anything other than a proposal at present - unless there's been a lot of discussion on it somewhere I haven't yet seen. The Land 11:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whew! I thought this idea had been successfully stifled. I'm glad to find that discussion is still open! One question I have is about how voluntary group activities on Wikipedia compare with "Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" activities. This "Article of the week" idea wasn't proposed as a "policy, guideline, or process" that had to be followed. It seems much more like just a useful voluntary activity. Could someone who sees this as "red tape" explain that view in more detail? Red tape usually refers to a bureaucratic process that somehow prevents people from doing what they wish to do. How could a totally voluntary activity be red tape? (Sdsds - Talk) 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're quite right, I should have speedily deleted it. You are, I hope, aware that sarcasm is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy?  >Radiant< 09:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I had no idea Wikipedia policy forbids anything that might improve the encyclopedia! (Sdsds - Talk) 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (Oh and also, as I wrote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article of the week, there doesn't yet seem to be a concensus on this, does there? (Sdsds - Talk) 09:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *A proposal is not rejected by the presence of a consensus to reject it, but by the absence of a consensus to support it. Common misconception; see WP:POL for details. >Radiant< 09:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, thanks for pointing that out. But now I'm confused, and solicit your help in understanding the current situation. Are you suggesting "Article of the week" was proposed as a policy or guideline? Or was it intended as something more like a Wikiproject? Is the process for creating anything in the Wikipedia: namespace always so heavily weighted towards inaction? (Sdsds - Talk) 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd call it "process" or "project", but the point is that it is generating extra work (not to mention strife) for little or no benefit. The way this is designed, it will draw many editors who have better things to do into a debate whether my article is better than your article. I'm sure it's well intended and all, but it's simply giving more heat than light. And, well, yes, most attempts to create a new process in Wikispace fail because people aren't convinced of the need of that process. >Radiant< 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During the very brief time the experiment was allowed to run, there wasn't any apparent strife. What evidence supports the assertion that this will create strife or debate about the merits of articles? Remember, this is explicitly an approval voting process. No one has an opportunity to vote against any article! (Sdsds - Talk) 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work 

message: I wonder if there's a way to combine some process that would select a "most popular newly featured article" with the existing Wikipedia:Did you know process. According to Template Talk:Did you know, "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded in the last 5 days." So it's practically impossible for a newly featured article to have a DYK entry. Does anyone think the DYK folks might consider changing their policy? (Sdsds - Talk) 19:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, no. Very rarely does an article become a featured article almost immediately upon creation. Generally, they become so after several months of work. More recently created articles certainly have an opportunity to be nominated for DYK if they are more than 1500 characters long. Also, the DYK process of using a "hook" to draw attention could itself be an obstacle to featured articles which do not lend themselves to comparatively short "hooks". John Carter 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine with DYK? 

message: I would prefer to see prior discussions on this page archived, now that the deletion review has been closed. Noting WP:CCC, it would be good if this page could focus on how concensus on the subject of "Article of the week" might change, rather than on the concensus decision-making that led to this proposal being rejected. If even one other person agrees, I encourage them to be WP:BOLD and create the archive. (Sdsds - Talk) 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival post-DRV