User talk:ElectionJune2014/Referenda/2
"compare its content and quality with comparable articles in other encyclopedias, including Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica online"
- Not encouraging start. WP is certainly not reliable (it says so itself, so it must be true). EB isn't either (I can give examples if you like, though those would be from the print edition, as the online one seems to be subscription-only (last I tried)). What should be checked against is the most specialist material available. Peter Jackson 10:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have separate categories. The main page should link separately to articles approved by specialist Editors and to those approved by Council or Approvals Manager. Peter Jackson 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't wany to sound negative. I've signed up to support this. I think a more realistic prospect of formal recognition would encourage contributions. Peter Jackson 09:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Peter, I share most of your concerns.
With respect to Wikipedia, I just want to be sure that our article has improved upon theirs, and that we have not missed anything that they might have covered that we did not.
With respect to Encyclopaedia Britannica online, premium edition, the same comments apply.
Yes, in evaluating an article for approval we should compare it to articles and specialist encyclopedias. There are literally dozens and dozens of them, practically one for every discipline.
I'm not sure about your penultimate paragraph. Are you suggesting three separate articles for each topic? That seems a little tedious, and not very user friendly. I favor of making a commitment to an article, by approving it and making it citable. As the main article will be editable by all the citizenry, the approved article can be upgraded if the edits to the main article merit it.
Thank you for supporting the referendum. Anthony.Sebastian 20:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the whole point of citable articles, instead of approved ones, is permanence. That is, people can cite the article in the hope that it will still be there, and say the same thing, when anyone reads their citation. That means, if we want to revise it and produce an improved citable article, we have to keep the old one as well. Then the citable link from the main article would go to a listing of links to different citable articles.
- However, that wasn't what I was talking about. I simply meant that the main page should say there are so many articles approved by specialist Editors, and so many approved by the Council or AM, and link to separate lists of those 2 types. We shouldn't be weakening Editor authority yet again. Peter Jackson 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Peter, you are right we still have not resolved the issue of version control of citable articles. When somebody cites a citable article, the citation should include a version number and a link to its location, wherever we decide to locate an earlier version of a citable article.
- I agree with your last point. Anthony.Sebastian 21:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)