final five recommendations
Re: Senior editors...
I'm definitely interested in "equivalent experience" too. I'm curious to see what ideas other people have to offer.
Completing a few FAs is a pretty high standard. So I couldn't imagine building a consensus for a more "impressive" standard than that. But my thinking was that completing GAs or A-class articles would be an equivalent, as would making a strong effort to save an article at a featured article review. Just that FAs are one of the only accomplishments that are awarded by consensus, and it was important to create a simple standard for "senior editor" that reflects community ideals without becoming a political contest (see RFA). Qualifying by approval of the community was added as a "catch all" to cover other reputable editors, but there's a lot of demand to avoid that kind of vote.
In my mind, it wouldn't be terrible if an experienced editor without any FAs were suddenly motivated to spend a few days building one. If they really understand verifiability and neutrality and so on, it wouldn't be particularly hard to do. But yeah, this idea is something we need to work on.
If you look at FAC, the process has a backlog. Many of the problems with promoting articles are due to copyediting type problems, image issues (Fair use problems and such), and other issues that are not necessarily related to core policy about neutrality or verifiability. Also, we have disputes on English Wikipedia between editors about FA and GA that cause people to leave Wikipedia. So, I'm not sure that the new status would resolve the problem. It might intensify them.
But that aside, I support the new role as long as we broaden the criteria to include more people that contribute to adding quality content. Like on Wikinews where they have editor as a status. Maybe make Senior Editor a role above novice editor. But I'm not sure that it needs to be exclusive to people that write FA. That is a very limited group and would cause massive problems if everyone tried to have their articles go through the FA process.
The backlog is a significant issue. But we can tackle it, if we discuss it. If we get more people involved in FAs, it's possible we could actually reduce the backlog. (e.g.: by requesting that people who nominate featured articles also participate in other FA nominations)
The challenge with "senior editors" is we want the status to be granted by consensus. WikiNews currently does a simple vote on each nominee, but Sue Gardner cautioned us against that. On larger projects like Wikipedia, the politics of RFA have gotten ugly, and senior editors shouldn't be a political position. Featured Articles are one of the few ways we can measure the quality of a contribution that still reflects consensus. Yeah, I'm sure there are FA discussions that get controversial, but I can't envision a standard for "senior editors" that somehow reflects consensus while avoiding controversy. Where you find consensus-building, you find at least some controversy.
We can definitely lower/change the bar for "senior editors", but the standard would have to:
- Reflect community consensus about reputation/quality
- Avoid some kind of political vote on nominees (although nominees could volunteer to undergo a vote if they are an exceptional case)
I think we agree this is an issue, so let's see what suggestions people have.
Reposting an expanded version of what i posted in the Wikipedia quality discussion.
- Understanding of Verifiability, Neutral PoV & No Original Research
- Contribution to GA/FL/FA and/or GA/FL/FA rescue
- Collaborative works, can play nice with others editors and find compromise
- Knowledgeable in Wikipedia inner-process (Notice board, request protection, sock investigation, etc...)
- Understanding of the inherent Systemic Bias and its own personal biases
- Ability to admit its own mistakes and apologize
FA won't make you a senior editor as some FA makers showed lack of judgment and will to reach compromise. The English ArbCom know a few of them :p
Another concerning point is "senior editors" subtly trying to spread their wikipedia vision on new editors unaware that other visions exist. Can we trust a notable deletionist multi FA/FL/GA editor to offer neutral guidance to new editors?
Well i said already plenty enough about "senior editors" and how much i'm not uber fan of them due to their probable inability to live up to our expectations. Let's community try them but for my part i fear that out laziness and bureaucratic handling people will make the FA maker = "senior editor" shortcut in their minds.
It might be more useful to continue this conversation here:
I included the noticeboard idea, because that's tactile. I agree with the others in spirit... but implementation is tricky. I think FAs and noticeboards cover a lot of them though, with a check on people who have been sanctioned for bad conduct in the past.