A bullet list of quality thoughts

@1: Addressing newcomers (with tools such at the article creation wizard) is important as we do need more editors, and I think at this point we have tapped the pool of those who can and want to master the current wiki syntax.

@2: Established editors: Ensuring that editing stays enjoyable, by looking at ways it can cease to be fun.. KEY POINT, KEY POINT. Our pool of editors is in fact shrinking ([1]). Addressing this is a major issue, because if we loose too many editors, quality improvement efforts will inevitably suffer (I am familiar with complains "we need more editors" from various places - copyeditor people, copyvio people, thematic wikiproject people... In fact, here's a simple recommendation to improve quality: get more dedicated editors (reach out to those who left?).

@3: Automatization is nice, and all efforts towards that end should be supported. But in the end, bots can do only a few things better than humans.

@4: An interesting point. I know pl wiki for example has a way to add mini-templates to interwiki links to indicate articles in other languages have been FAed or GAed. This could and should be improved to reflect the entire spectrum of quality changes, from stub to FA, and possibly a flag to indicate something like: "this article has been recently edited".

@5: Perhaps, but this smacks to close to flagged revisions and other stuff I don't fully endorse.

@6: Problem editing: seems to be under control, no need to change it substantially (why fix what's not broken)? Social efficiency: another important point. I have dedicated quite a lot of thought to this issue and perhaps I will write something here in more detail later. For now, I'd say the key issues are related to enforcing civility and creating good editing atmosphere. Automation: covered above.

--Piotrus 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)