Proposal:Core topics complete

Status (see valid statuses)

---

The status of this proposal is:
Request for Discussion / Sign-Ups

Strategic Priorities

Every proposal should be tied to one of the strategic priorities below.

Edit this page to help identify the priorities related to this proposal!

1. Achieve continued growth in readership
2. Focus on quality content
3. Increase Participation
4. Stabilize and improve the infrastructure
5. Encourage Innovation

Share this:

This is a featured proposal. This template automatically categorizes into Category:Featured proposals. All proposals marked by this template should be on this list too.

Summary

Wikipedia, at last count, had 2,993,967 articles. This is a staggering number and testiment to the work of many people, however it betrays the fact that we have yet to raise the vital articles, articles that every encyclopedia needs, to a consistent quality. Of the level 1 vital articles, only 1 has reached even "Good article" status. At level 2 the ratio becomes arguably worse.

I think we owe it to ourselves and the status of Wikipedia as a respectable source of information, to improve the vital articles to a respectable level, even at the neglect of other articles. As much as it may be unpopular, I cannot think of a better way to improve the respectibility and impact of Wikipedia than this.

Proposal

1. Organise special groups/taskforces of users to participate in improving a vital article.
2. Increase the motivation for users to improve these articles.
3. Increase the coverage of these articles.
4. Enlist and encourage experts in certain subjects to improve articles where content is lacking.
5. Create or renew WikiProjects to be involved with the improvement of the articles.
6. Educate the community how to write a broad, general article.
7. Create a page where editors can post "projects" and ask for asistance or oversight.

Motivation

The core topics/vital articles are the most critical and important that Wikipedia has. Additionally they are some of the most visited articles too. Wikipedia would undoubtedly achieve more respect as a source of information if these articles were of a good standard.

Key Questions

• Would we be willing to enlist specialist and expert users in their fields to improve these articles? Would this damage Wikipedia's 'everyone appeal' or simply be a necessary step in areas that are neglected?
• How far should/could other articles be neglected to improve these vital articles?
• Why is an en.wp only proposal strategic for the WMF ?

Potential Costs

A potential, but highly unlikely, cost could be the hiring of specialist editors and experts to improve articles in their field. However, there are a wide range of other (free) alternatives, meaning this would be a last resort.

Community Discussion

Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal Talk:Core topics complete.

Want to work on this proposal?

1. .. Sign your name here!