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 speialist 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)