Barriers to Quality at Wikipedia (and potentially other Wiki projects)

    Brenda here on Blackberry.

    Tentatively yes and yes. I agree that it may be time to go back to the task force group for clarification. And if the job isn't "ours" I will ask that this job be given to an existing taskforce. More when on a computer.

    And FT2 I decidely don't want to disturb you mumble brand mumble. ;), 30 November 2009

    On your post: we're apparently considering _three_ doors here, but one seems to be agreed not helpful. Door #1 is very low level (how admins should act, etc), #2 is quality of content (and what approaches will have most substantive impact on it, and on the community's ability to create and sustain it), #3 is quality of project (ie what is Wikipedia's core and what does that drive elsewhere). I think we agree #1 isn't a suitable level, but we probably all agree that 2 and 3 are each valid and very useful.

    So, a further possible thought: - I notice that new taskforces are easy to set up. Perhaps one option when seeking clarification, would be to spawn a specific sub-task, purely for quality of content. Same team, same membership, same users still contributing to both, but the approaches, focus, and such are very distinct.

    Gut instinct. If we do have to consider broad quality remit (which I'm not averse to at all provided we don't overlook content quality by doing so)... then I think we will have so much to do that the big stuff for each is best worked out in its own "space". Their focus is very different (in scale and perspective). And both sets of conclusions will independently be very valuable.

    FT2 (Talk | email)19:40, 30 November 2009

    Will you do the "going back and getting clarification" bit?

    FT2 (Talk | email)04:37, 1 December 2009

    should it be me getting clarification?

    Admins, content, big picture -- I dont see them as three doors, I see door number one as the micro level including admins and content and I see door number two as the macro or big picture.

    I reread our mandate from the quality task force Wiki twice today. There was a large blanket statement about quality, not specific just to content. I still think we need to have a "talk" with those holding the strategy cards about what the concept of Wikipedia Quality covers to them, and then pitch a case for a wholesale look at the big picture if we feel it is necessary (obviously yes in my book.)

    And, I never assumed quality of content would be subsumed by anything. If the quality of content is not there, then my mandate to myself to help Wikipedia be cite-able by college students will never come to fruition. :)

    Bhneihouse07:40, 1 December 2009

    Yeah. "We know what we mean" :) Go for it.

    FT2 (Talk | email)19:01, 1 December 2009

    Anyone else want to weigh in on this before I bring it up to the powers that be who set the task forces up?

    Thanks for your vote of confidence, FT2. (I think that is what it was ;) )

    Bhneihouse21:27, 1 December 2009

    Please go ahead and ask them, more clarification is always welcome I guess :-)

    Woodwalker06:36, 2 December 2009