Proposal talk:Improve transparency of article status and the editing process

From Strategic Planning

Towards more bureaucracy

There are plenty of Wikiprojects that are doing this already, and plenty of Talk pages that already have such a box, containing a list. From what I have seen this just adds a layer of bureaucracy (and intimidation), without helping in any way. - Brya 05:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of impartial information

Another issue is that it tends to be impossible to add critical remarks about flaws or errors in an article, as the particular Wikiproject that owns the page may well wipe anything that is not positively furthering the agenda of that project. In many cases impartial information about the article does not stand much chance of survival; it will not reach the reader. A solution for this would be the adoption of something along the lines of other software, as is used in most other sites on the www, examples being Amazon and IMDB. Of course this too means that this meta-information should be kept out of the article itself. - Brya 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Make it easy to change the status of an article - I like that. This data could automatically feed into Wikiproject templates and, if applicable, the featured star in the right hand corner. I oppose having such icons for any other status as it lessens the value of featured, and highlights our unreliability. HereToHelp (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]