This page is a sub-topic of the main quality taskforce, looking specifically at quality of content and factors impacting it.
This is distinct but overlapping with a wider sense of quality -- quality at a project level. The latter covers areas such as quality of public communication, offering, reach, culture, overall philosophy of approach (and alignment to it), and so on.
Quality of content covers issues such as:
Focus What is the focus of a discussion about content quality, and, which aspects of content quality are 'important' Metrics What metrics best reflect content quality Issues What issues impede or assist content quality Priorities What priorities must be addressed to maximize long term improvement in content quality Articles The norms and expectations that apply to articles themselves (in-house style, use of links and templates, balance and neutrality, sources and cites, topic coverage, page layout, etc). Is any norm a significant concern, for quality. Editor profile If certain types of editor are especially valuable to content, how do we attract and retain them Editor diversity If editors tend to overrepresent certain demographics, how does this skew content? Long term basis What decisions need to be made, to best underpin long term quality (for example, a self-sustaining community of good quality editors, steady long term improvement, etc) Community If quality is dependent on fostering a vibrant healthy community, what recommendations for the community might be most significant in their effect on content quality (this overlaps the Community Health taskforce but may offer additional insights due to the different "angle") Detrimental behavior If certain types of human interaction and agenda are detrimental to content quality, how do we reduce or minimize them Structures and beliefs Do existing structures and beliefs best facilitate content quality, and are any 'sacred cows' impeding it. External interfacing What aspects of external interfacing are relevant to content quality (for example user feedback and guidance) Best compromises Where any of these inherently conflict, what payoffs and compromizes might be best and why Leverage and feedback loops The effect of a single report on hundreds of thousands of editors (including future editors) is uncertain. What recommendations can be embodied into actions that will spark desirable feedback loops ("positive and negative feedback") or best leverage what we already have, and may create self-perpetuating pervasive changes to help us. Colloquially, what would maximize "bang per buck".
Other significant issues worth highlighting:
Retaining existing quality content Anyone can edit, editors change, and everything can be re-edited. Once we have good content, how can we best lock it in or perpetuate it? (ie, so-called "erosion") Perception What does the public (and the media that informs it) consider important in regard to quality, as opposed to any reality of what is important. We need to take their views on what matters as a high priority. Task coverage Not all quality-related tasks get the attention they need.
Discussion on the talk page.