Aim: Global projects can look at quality of articles in a particular field, identify missing articles, evaluate quality between the projects and recommend on what to translate. They can help get local high-quality users out of their isolation and reduce the erosion of locally produced quality content.
Means: Collect expertise across all projects.
Further options: Once these thematic projects are in place they could be used to organize workshops to educate new editors in writing articles and selecting sources. They could list and discuss the best general secondary sources in the field.
Senior editor status: recognition of quality editors as part of the community - a parallel track for users not interested in meta-activity and getting a sysop flag. Based on achievements in improving the content quality.
Aim: The senior editor would help with content dispute resolution in problematic articles. The senior users should be considered as "maintainers" of high-quality content standards. They are trusted in problematic areas, such as situations of restricted access to articles editing.
Means: these should be selected for commitment to NOR, NPoV and V-policies and on a proven track record for writing skills.
Aim: To help the users focus (or stay focused) on what the objective is
Means :
Adopt a "Brand" statement per project ("This is what we do").
Require all Wikipedia projects to have a page that clearly spells out each core policy on quality (NOR, NPOV, V, etc). Have Wikimedia check that these are actually there.
Put more effort in educating communities about these guidelines.
Further options for Wikipedia: Introduce a baseline quality standard, articles that comply with NOR, NPoV and V-policies, at a minimum.
A number of points have not been included here, since they have not been discussed thoroughly or because of the need to be brief. In the meanwhile, we plan to continue the discussions of the issues and will eventually come out with a roadmap (more detailed recommendations + planning) for each issue.
