Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who should be allowed to delist articles?

There is a dispute going on whether everybody should be allowed to delist nominated articles. Anjoe came up with the question, Why should partial editors be able to fail an article when they cannot pass it? I'd say, that because this nomination is about finding "good articles", even a partial editor can consider "his"/"her" article bad, but no editor should pass "his"/"her" articles. What do you think about that? The suggested change is in the "For reviewers of currently nominated articles" section in the subsection "Fail":

If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to and that you don't consider to meet the criteria. Raphael1 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It cannot be acceptable to allow any one person who has edit-warred over an article to have a veto over its GA status. Also, people who "fail" an article should *not* report that on the article talk page as "this article hsa failed" to make it appear objective - they should accurately report "*I* have failed this article" William M. Connolley 12:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If there is a consensus against my opinion, the article should be changed on another place as well, which reads "everyone has veto power", so it's consistent again. Anyway, I just used the suggested template for leaving a reason on the article's talk page, which says, that the Good article nomination has failed. Raphael1 12:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It is quite strange, if not absurd, to allow a person who have started edit-wars against consensus over an article to complain that the article in question is unstable and therefore cannot even be nominated as a GA. Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations is all about letting impartial editors decide the merits of an article that has already been nominated. I believe it is in the spirit of the project to let a nomination stand until an editor like that comes around. --Anjoe 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in edit-wars on this article for a long time. Raphael1 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"A long time" now being about a half an hour ago. --Anjoe 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you don't let me delist the article, I'm trying to follow Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes point 2. Raphael1 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Independent of who started an edit-war, an edit-war is a NPOV defeat and a clear sign, that no consensus has been reached. Raphael1 14:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The consensus has been reached and you know it. Those who disagree with it are starting edit wars. You happen to be one of them. -- tasc talkdeeds 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I know, that a supermajority decided in February to show the cartoons on the article and a lot of editors showed their disagreement since then. Please read WP:NBD. Raphael1 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that people who are heavily involved in an article shouldn't be able to fail it immedietly, just list them for nomination or dispute. Homestarmy 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very much glad you agree. But please know that if anyone involved in this good-article project wants to revert my edits to the 'rules' or change them, I wouldn't put up a least of a fight. I don't want to make changes you guys cannot approve of. It just seemed contraintuitive to me that someone apparently would be able to do as explained above, - so I closed the "exploit" - but of course only as a suggestion. Yours truly/--Anjoe 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool off people!

The issue is resolved, the article has been passed by a third party. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

@HighwayCello you seem to have a very selective understanding of what constitutes vandalism. How comes, that you regard my edit as vandalism and this edit not? Raphael1 16:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I say it wasn't? You're being propostorous. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well - according to WP:VANDAL neither Anjoes nor my edit constitutes vandalism. Raphael1 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(bangs head off keyboard) Anjoes was editting to update the page to align with the Rules. That is allowed. You reverted this without consensus from the community and acted on your own whim. That is vandalism. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
How can one update the rules to make them align with the rules? WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism." Raphael1 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The nominations page has it's own rules that aren't decided here. They are decided by the GA WikiProject. Anjoes was changing the nomination rules to align with the WikiProject rules. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please give me the link, where that WikiProject rules can be found. Raphael1 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you look at the top of this topic. This was what it was about before the Mohammad article ran wild. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No, this was the change Anjoe unilaterally made, before I even started the discussion here. Raphael1 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to change the the sentence "everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power." to "everyone can nominate good articles, and every impartial editor can pass or fail the nomination.". This is in no way building on some kind of wish to go against consensus, I am only acting on a remark above by Raphael1 that called for consistency to the rules. The "changes" I made to the rules on the 22. april, was never meant to be changes as such, but only to close for an otherwise unforseen exploit - as explained above. And as there only have been positive signs from people working on this project on this, I conclude that my 'uddates' indeed was within consensus. If you disagree please argue your case here. YT/--Anjoe 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"I am only acting on a remark above by Raphael1 that called for consistency to the rules" is one of the most disingenuous statements I've had the misfortune to read on wikipedia. You know very well that Raphael1 does not want you to unilaterally alter the GA guidelines to be consistent with your edit of 22-April. And to claim that, because you seem to have managed to convince User:HighwayCello that your edit was reverting to the original (when in fact it was a significant change to long-standing rules, intended to favour your position in an edit war with Raphael1), that "there only have been positive signs from people working on this project on this" is equally absurd. Finally, the fact that you describe a deliberate feature of the system as "an otherwise unforseen exploit" simply demonstrates a lack of understanding about how wikipedia works. — JEREMY 20:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the rule that way, I never had any opinion to start with. It begun when Raphael changed the guidelines. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It did not begin when Raphael1 changed the guidelines, and it's very easy to confirm that. Have a look at the article for any time prior to Anjoe's edit on 22-April and you'll see the original wording. — JEREMY 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We agreed on Anjoe's new version. Raphael reverted that. Making it Raphael that started by reverting against the agreed version. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Who's this "we", Highway? I see no agreement; please cite the relevant diffs if you disagree. — JEREMY 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So wait, who stands by what side now on this whole thing, it looks like most of the comments now are just arguing about "when it all started"? Homestarmy 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "It cannot be acceptable to allow any one person who has edit-warred over an article to have a veto over its GA status."
  • "It is quite strange, if not absurd, to allow a person who have started edit-wars against consensus over an article to complain that the article in question is unstable and therefore cannot even be nominated as a GA."
  • "I would agree that people who are heavily involved in an article shouldn't be able to fail it immedietly, just list them for nomination or dispute."

There are no Objects that are clearly obvious. Now if you will please stop complaining about a stupid article about a cartoon and stop wasting your time either arguing over whether to fail something or not. I reviewed the article so it's GA status has to do with me, no one who thinks it should be delisted because of the pictures. Now it's just common sense that if you shouldn't be able to fail an article because you disagree with content. Failing an article and removing the nomination are the same thing, now stop. I am ending this. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept your evidence of discussion of the issue, which I had previously overlooked, and I apologise to User:Anjoe for the accusations of unilateralism. I now accept Anjoe acted in good faith in making the changes to the GA delisting rules, based on the comments you have cited   although I disagree that there are "no Objects", citing Raphael1's attempts to restore the original wording. (For my comments on the issue generally, see below.) — JEREMY 06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your retraction of me being in bad faith. I respect you for that, and I respect your opinion although I may disagree. Yours truly, --Anjoe 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So then, the wording on the nominations instructions can change now without accusations of edit warring? Homestarmy 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's staying at whatever version says that you can't fail an article if you are a major contributor. I'll fix it now, and it should stay this way because it's the best policy. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Everybody should be allowed to fail it. I'd like to have only articles in the list, where everybody agrees that they are good. The "exploit" Anjoe was referring to has never actually occured, since I haven't been involved in edit-waring for at least a month before I failed that nomination. Raphael1 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Pardon my French but what the F*ck does "consensus" mean to people? I'm going for another third party opinion because obviously I'm not an admin so I'm not qualified to mediate anything. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is only achieved through empathy, compromise and civility. Not by swearing. Raphael1 22:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
He bleeped out the "u", thats more than alot of people do :/. Homestarmy 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear to me. An article on a controversial topic should only be reviewed by an impartial editor who has no feelings either way on the topic and hasn't touched the article. The good article review is to assess article quality, period. Only an editor who is entirely neutral on the matter can fairly assess a controversial piece.

With regards to this specific article, I was planning to step in and do it myself, but somebody beat me to it. As a result, I've not read it from top to bottom but it certainly has the "look and feel" of an article that deserves promotion. --kingboyk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Hello, everyone. I have been asked by HighwayCello to provide some informal mediation for this issue. It is not my intention to take sides on the matter, rather I hope to provide an outside source that can assist in facilitating productive and respectful discussion and help to eventually arrive at a decision that all parties can accept.

Throughout this, I would ask that all parties do their best to be civil and not make personal attacks. I realize that disagreements can bring out the worst in people, but if everyone can manage a level of respect, we should be able to come to a conclusion without too much anger.

I have read through all the sources I was able to find regarding this disagreement, including the entire discussion above, and the discussion regarding Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy's Good Article status at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes. If there are any other sources that are relavent, please be sure to let me know.

The issue at hand appears to be whether or not significant contributors of an article should be allowed to pass or fail said article for Good Article status. Before I make any initial suggestions, I would like to like to get a clear understanding of the reasons behind each point of view. This will also allow all involved parties to see all sides of the issue. Although there are many discussions of this above, they are often not well explalined or expanded. Therefore, I would ask that anyone with a strong feeling on the issue either way post their feelings and reasoning below. Once there is a clear understanding of both sides, we will be able to procede with knowledgable discussions.

Please add your reasoning below. I would ask that no one comment on another user's point of view in this initial stage. It is not meant to act as a discussion or a poll, but rather as a way for parties on both sides of the issue to see where the other is coming from. Thank you. I hope that I am able to provide some help to this issue. -- Natalya 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe the original GA delisting criteria should be restored; specifically "everyone can veto" (although I'd be happy to see this changed to "any registered editor can veto"). Good Articles are exemplars of wikipedia, and articles which are characterised by ongoing, unresolved disagreement do not represent the best this project has to offer. The cartoon article is a classic example of the "supermajority = consensus" fallacy — in which voting is used as a substitute for a genuine attempt to reach a consensus position — that has lead to frequent accusations of "systemic bias" in wikipedia. (The fact that in this case the disagreement extended to retrospectively altering long-standing wikipedia guidelines in order to promote a contentious article should be evidence enough of the problem.) Regardless of any superficial semblance of quality, such articles are not "good" in the sense of promoting the core principles of the project. While it is — and probably should be — difficult for a minority opinion to influence the development of an article in the face of concerted opposition from the majority, the "everyone can veto" provision in the GA guidelines intentionally prevents the use of such aberrant articles as precedents. If this occasionally results in GA candidates being unreasonably denied listing, that is unfortunate, but the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. — JEREMY 06:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I want the original proposal by Anjoe that was supported at the top of this section because I believe it to be fair. If major contributors can't review an article, why should they be allowed to pull a nomination? Failing an article and pulling a nomination are the same thing. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the pre-April 22nd version of the guideline before User:Anjoe unilaterally altered it. I don't think, the Nomination guideline should be changed to push any article (in this case it happens to be the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article) on the Good article list. I'd say, that the purpose of the guideline is to filter out good articles, therefore the criteria for a pass should be stronger than for fail. Independent of whether the editor is a significant contributor or not, the article should only be delisted, if it doesn't meet the Good article criterias. The "exploit" Anjoe tried to fix with his change is, that an editor could "edit-war" an article and then claim the article failed the "stable" criteria. Even if that "exploit" is indeed possible, it had not been the case, since I've delisted the article for other editors "edit-wars". Raphael1 13:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll throw in my 2 cents. The way I see it, the GA system is, well, pretty new. And while it was new, the informal system of single decisions on articles without anything like voting or something easily sufficed. Furthermore, because the GA criteria is nowhere near FA criteria, it could afford to have relatively lax standards, articles could have references without them being good, good prose without brilliant prose, maybe just a few little POV mistakes, etc. etc.. In the beginning of the project, the nomination procedure didn't even exist in a mandatory fashion, people would throw up articles if they really wanted a review, but anybody could label any article as a good article as long as they were not a big contributor. As the project developed and more people became interested, the standards have had to rise to adapt to the new influx of participants and possibly hostile POVs. Now that we're finally getting into some pretty controversial articles, another increase in standards is undoubtably necessary once again. As articles with polarized editorial communities come into the GA system, it will be necessary to add in another standard of impartiality, so that articles we continue to add to the list will actually represent good articles to varied groups of people, rather than just a small group. Pass and fail procedures, as we've already seen, are easy prey for edit wars. Already, no editors who are heavily involved in articles may pass them, perhaps because that was maybe our only rule from the beginning, editors who had contributed to an article couldn't pass it to GA immedietly. Now, we have reached an impasse. Continuing with a system where even heavily involved editors may continually edit war over the constant failing and nominating of articles will probably not end well, and most likely will not give the GA system any weight as far as Wikipedia standards go. (We're already apparently not very important to many editors, which I mean I can understand, since you know, there are more FA's than GA's.) If an article is to be failed and an involved editor wishes this to be so, the GA system already has a solution, the disputes page. There, any editor may lay out their case, and if they actually have one, then obviously people will agree and somebody can fail the article who is not heavily involved in it. However, if an editor doesn't have a case for failing an article from GA, and most editors seem to agree that an article should be a GA, then it is quite wrong that the one editor may edit war their decision into place. A standard that heavily involved editors should not be able to fail articles at their every whim is entirely appropriate where we already have a clearly set up system for disputes, where anyone may make their case to the community. But I believe that without such a standard, edit wars will crop up often when we hit controversial articles. Homestarmy 13:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that GA is not supposed to be about listing articles with only a few minor problems - the criteria are actually quite similar to FA criteria. It's about recognising excellent content that is beyond the scope of the FA system, which really mainly means shorter articles. The article everyone's getting worked up about is 75kb long - far far too long, in my opinion, for one person to be able to adequately review it. It is the sort of thing which clearly could be an FA, and so it falls outside our scope in any case.
More generally, it seems completely clear to me that no-one who has significantly contributed to an article should be involved in passing or failing its nomination. That would make a mockery of things. An impartial review is the only review worth having. Worldtraveller 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear about it, there are in my view several benifits of changing the original rules: 1) It would provide a simplification to the rules and to the terminologi. To 'veto' a nomination, to 'pull' it and to 'fail' an article after review would become the same thing officially as it really is in practice (as noted by HighwayCello above). 2) It would close an exploit in which a known editor acting againgst consensus no longer would be able to first unstabilize an article and then in person proceed to GA-fail it on the grounds of instability. 3) The changes would stop or at least hinder flamewars from spilling over into this project. The GA-project should not be made a rutinely second fighting ground for all kinds of unsatisfication of small minorities relating to articles. And lastly 4), all things being equal, it would underscore the spirit of neutral reviewing which I believe is the ideal we should wish to communicate to editors wanting to work on this project. On a more defensive note I would admit the proposed changes would make it slighty less dificult for an article to make it to GA-status, but the argument against this is simply that GA is not - nor should be - the same as FA. The rule that "everyone" should have a veto is an absolutistic rule (it cannot be made stronger) which hardly seems appropriate for nomination to only secondbest status. I want to thank user:Natalya for mediation on this matter. --Anjoe 14:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone putting their thoughts into this discussion. I am impressed with the amount of clarity each of you has put into expressing your opinions. It appears that everyone involved in the discussion has contributed above, which is very good. This way, all viewpoints have been able to be expressed. In order to make discussion and resolution easier, I've attempted to summarize the different sides of the issue below. Once all points have been identified, we can hopefully identify what is most important to allow a solution to be come by.

The issue: Whether users who have significantly contributed to an article should be allowed to fail the article for Good Article status.

Common thought (yes, there really is one!):

Reasons why significant contributors should be allowed to fail an article (as expressed above):

  • Anyone should be able to fail an article if it does not meet the Good Article Criteria.
  • Nothing should get in the way of filtering out un-Good Articles
  • So as to not alienate contributors who truly do not agree that it is a Good Article

Reasons why significant contributors should not be allowed to fail an article (as expressed above):

  • Significant contributors cannot review and pass an article, so the same should apply for failing an article.
  • The disputes page allows for any significant contributors to bring up disagreements with decisions that have been made without making the actual decision.
  • All reviews should be impartial.
  • Possible actions on the part of a significant contributor to fail the article would be avoided.

Before we get into possible resolutions, does everyone feel that the descriptions above are accurate? Please let me know if there is something else important that should be included. Please comment below. If all looks okay, we can continue. I am confident that we will be able to reach a solution that everyone can agree with. Regardless of the difference of opinions, all in all, everyone is working towards the same goal of identifying Good Articles. Try not to forget that despite disagreement, you are all trying to do the same thing, and that is what matters most. -- Natalya 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye. (I may just nominate you for this :P) Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)— JEREMY
Firstly, thanks Natalya for your good work. In addition to the points mentioned above, I believe there is another reason "significant contributors" should be allowed to fail or delist any article nominated for or promoted to GA. (I've said some of the following in my contribution above, but I was perhaps insufficiently explicit for my reasoning to make the list.) In the course of editing a "normal article", it is inevitable that minority viewpoints will sometimes be overwhelmed, ignored or rebuffed by the majority, perhaps for reasons which, were they examined microscopically by ArbCom or some other impartial third party, would be determined to be OR, POV, or otherwise against wikipedia policy. We must accept that this is the normal course of events in a real-world environment like wikipedia. If the mere existence of an article like Bosnian pyramids or Rationales to impeach George W. Bush or Lolicon offends you to the core, but its editors treat your earnest contributions, your righteously indignant reverts and finally your WP:IAR article-blanking as simple vandalism, the options open to you are few, and the best one is simply to walk away from the article, telling yourself that nothing is perfect and that, in the grand scheme of things, it's just one more piece of wikicruft by a bunch of undesirables. GA (and FA) are, however, a different matter. These designations say loudly and clearly, to the community and the public, that we consider them to be "the very best of Wikipedia". As such they represent, not merely the editors involved in crafting them, but the whole wikipedia community. In this case, if there were no "everyone can veto" provision in the rules, the only option available to an editor scandalised by the very existence of the article would be to walk away from wikipedia. Thus, in the end, the choice becomes one of "some editors get a warm and fuzzy feeling" vs "wikipedia loses an editor who has made a significant contribution to an arguably Good Article". I suspect that the editors who originally designed the GA system thought this through carefully, and that's why, although they chose to allow only "an impartial reviewer to [...] add to [the GA] list", they also chose to allow "any editor" to remove articles from it. — JEREMY 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint. I've attempted to take your detailed explanation and simplifiy it, adding a bullet point above. I'm sure better justice could be done to it - if there is a better way to phrase it in a short manner, please advise. -- Natalya 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I think that's a fair interpretation of what I'm saying. (I'd perhaps prefer it to read "To help ensure partisan material isn't power-gamed to GA status", but that would be POV. :) — JEREMY 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems that the issue and its respective sides have been summarized appropriately above, we can contine with working towards a solution. I've layed out a set of questions below; peruse them at your leisure, and then below each one comment whether you agree, disagree, or agree/disagree to a point. In all cases, please be sure to explain why, especially with agreeing/disagreeing to a point. Please respond to each statement, not just those of your choosing. This will allow us to see what everyone agrees on, and what will require some compromise. By finding these things out, a solution will be able to crafted that everyone can accept. Feel free to engage in respectful discussion, but realize that with disagreeing viewpoints, it may not be possible to make someone agree with you no matter how hard you try, and it may be better to just let it sit. -- Natalya 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

General Opinions

Agree, although I think this position risks pushing "the problem" back into defining exactly what does meet the GA criteria. — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well yea, I mean, it would compleatly undermine the system if the standards could just be ignored :/ Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I third it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Noone's disagreeing it seems (and not me). --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The criterias are important and it would be bad i.e. to have an unstable article listed. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
+1 on the agree roster here. Netscott 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Impartial reviewing allows the best determination of Good Article status.
Agree, but the problem may come in determining what's "impartial reviewing" and what's not. — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Im not quite so sure what "impartial reviewing" means here either, impartial in terms of you haven't edited something substantially, or impartial as in Christians can't pass Christian articles or something, this needs clarification. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree to "if I haven't contributed I can review".. I'm not going for "I videogames, I can't." Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Having a strong POV on an article might reduce the judgement quality. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
+1 on the agree roster here. Netscott 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is easiest for users who have not contributed to the article to be impartial.
Agree, although those who have not contributed to the article may not be aware of all the issues relevant to determining whether or not the article itself is impartial/meets GA criteria. (Note that I have made a minor grammatical correction to this question.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Generally, i'd say yes to this. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is easier. I reckon that it's the only workable way to determine "impartiality" here at Wikipedia. It might not be a perfect way, but propably the best available way. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Contributing to an article easily results in some kind of affection towards it. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
Agree. Contibuting to an article and it having been determined by a super-majority to include content that you don't agree with would tend to incline one to not want it to recieve Good Article status regardless of whether or not it merited it. Netscott 16:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible for significant contributors to be impartial about an article they worked on if they want to be.
Agree it is possible for some signficant contributors; disagree it is possible for all significant contributors. Sometimes it is impossible for people to be impartial, as they are unaware of their own biases, or feel compelled to act in a biased fashion for reasons more important to them than the concept of impartiality. — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well sure its possible, but I don't think its worth assuming this and then implementing such an idea for the GA system, it could cause more edit wars. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
To an extent, but not to the standard of those who are completely neutral. You could view a paragraph you wrote with no analytical subconsciously, and how on earth can you see your own grammatical mistakes? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I once thought (read:hoped) that partiality could be overcome no matter the level of involvement, I don't anymore. Only a very few people (if any) have that ability. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Even a contributing editor can check the criterias and i.e. find out, that there are many revert wars. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
Disagree. While in theory it is possible, in reality it is not possible for a thrid party to know if a major contributor is indeed impartial. Netscott 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Significant contributors to an article may understand the reasons why it may or may not be good, since they have worked intimately with it.
Agree. (See above answer to third question.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but anyone can understand an article. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
They may (if they aren't too blinded by their POV), but in my opinion the GA-standard is not that high that it require beforehand intimate understanding of the subject to judge it correctly. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Editors, who have not contributed, might not be that interested on the articles topic at all. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
Agree in principal, but this is why the Good Article dispute process exists whereby such editors can expound on the reasoning for an article not meriting Good Article status. Also I agree with Anjoe and Homestarmy's sentiments. Netscott 17:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The opinions of significant contributors should be considered when it comes to granting/failing Good Article status.
Agree. — JEREMY 12:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Considered sure, especially for the disputes page, otherwise you might not be even getting the whole picture. But considered in terms of single veto if somebody simply doesn't like the direction an article, that doesn't seem fair. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Understand them, sure. Should they affect a review? No. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Their opnions should be considered, but they should not be able to act or even vote on the matter. - This way we can harvest their expertise (se above) but avoid their POV. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Everybodys opinion is important in Wikipedia culture. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
Agree with Homestarmy, Highway and Anjoe's opinions. Netscott 17:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Significant contributors should not have the final decision when it comes to granting/failing Good Article status.
Agree with respect to granting GA; disagree with respect to failing GA. (I would point to my second comment above to justify this position fully, but essentially I believe it's very important that no article which is in a "contentious" state be granted GA.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with it all. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and in my opinion their votes should not even count in a dispute - although they can try to influence others all they want (but that may be another matter). --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Nobody alone should have the final decision on granting Good Article status. But everybody should agree, that the article is good for granting it Good Article status. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
100% Agree, it is not possible for a third independent party to be 100% sure of a major contributor's impartiality and as such thier ability to determine a grant/fail should be negated. Netscott 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If they have demonstrated impartiality, significant contributors should be able to grant/fail Good Article status.
Disagree with respect to granting GA; agree with respect to failing GA. I doubt it's possible to "demonstrate impartiality" to everyone's satisfaction. (Note that I have made a minor typo-correction to this question.) — JEREMY 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't see how it should matter, its not like GA is some horribly necessary system that articles absolutly need immedietly or they'll be doomed forever or something, this system is all still relatively informal. Homestarmy 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Who would be deemed impartial would be too complicated and too coincidental otherwise. Above on this talkpage TheGrappler made the good point that although the GA-process may not be a substitute for peer review, it still commonly works to the same effect. But this can only be possible if a) there is a impartial review proces in place here, and b) that an article in fact is not removed before it gets to be impartially reviewed. And remember: It is always possible for some other impartial editor to go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes and delist or complain if an article wrongly has been listed as Good. --Anjoe 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. They should be able to fail it, but not be able to pass it. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(Pasted from Raphael1's talkpage by JEREMY)
100% Disagree. How is a third independent party going to be able to determine a major contributor's impartiality without being intimately aware of thier actions? This puts too much onus on the third party to know the full story. Best to have the benefit of the doubt be on the probably partial side of the scale. Netscott 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On the pasting in of Raphael1's comments

I can see that Jeremygbyrne has pasted in the comments of Raphael1 from User_talk:Raphael1#Please respond to mediation, because Raphael1 could not himself since he has been blocked until 11:54, 6 May 2006. First I wanted to revert immediately, but in the spririt of this informal mediation I will post this protest first: There should be some consequences of being bloked - one of those being that you cannot weigh in or vote on matters any other place than on your user-talk page. Raphael1 has been blocked because of his systematic disruption in violation of consensus on a specific matter. Why should we let him comment here by middleman when we obviously should be concerned whether he will respect the result of the mediation if it goes against him? Isn't it like making a mockery of this whole excerzise (and of him being bloked - by several admins, should I add). I hope Jeremygbyrne will realize that this is only common sense and revert himself. --Anjoe 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to discussion, Anjoe. I agree that the method of Raphael1 expressing his comments is a bit unorthodox. However, all opinions in this discussion are important; others not participating may have the same opinions as Raphael1, and I do not feel they should be reverted. Unless there are truly any major objections, I suggest that we leave Raphael1's comments as they are, but in any final voting on a decision, do not allow him to vote. Does this sound appropriate to everyone? -- Natalya 14:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Natalya, thank you for recognising the importance of all opinions. However, I'm unclear why Raphael1 should be excluded from decision-making (which I'd be disappointed to see occur by simple voting, after all this careful conflict-resolution stuff) on the basis of behaviour unrelated to this discussion. In any case, his block is set to expire early on Saturday morning; do you see any likelihood we'll be in a position to be making final decisions before then? — JEREMY 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm impartial here but this seems to me a clear-cut case. Of course her opinions should be noted and taken into consideration. But, if this is voted on at all and the voting is before her block runs out, she shouldn't be able to vote. She committed such-and-such violation of policy, so she relinquished her rights to edit. Regards, --Celestianpower háblame 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Anjoe, the alternative was to wait until Raphael1's block expired (there's no time-limit on this mediation after all), and I for one would rather we could all move on with this. Surely you'd prefer to see the greatest possible diversity of opinion represented in discussions of this nature, in order to improve the chance (however slim) that we'll actually think of everything? — JEREMY 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, call me oldfashioned for prefering the alternative of himself posting his own comments. But in any case: I have put a small description on the above pasted comments so people at least can go check that you pasted correctly and so that admins don't get too confused over a blocked person suddenly editing. I hope it's alright to use your alias in the descriptor, - I don't want people to think that it was me doing the cut n' paste. /--Anjoe 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer he could post too, but that would require either that we waited, or that certain admins had been prepared to recuse themselves from judging block durations on the basis of conflicted interest. As for the tagging, I don't have a problem with it, but thanks for asking. — JEREMY 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion, it looks like the best course of action will be to contine with the mediation as it would be. If the block is still going on when decisions are formulated and made (don't worry, Jeremy, I spoke incorrectly when I used the word 'vote'), Raphael1 will be unable to add input, as is the point of the block. -- Natalya 20:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Crafting possible solutions

NOTE: Please go to the second section below.

Based on the responses to the general opinion questions, I've crafted a series of possible solutions. Nothing is close to being final yet, but it should help us to be able to focus in on the most promising solutions, and then finalize them. Below each possible solution, I've listed pros and cons based off the above comments. There is also a comments sections. Please comment on the solutions, and add any important pros or cons. -- Natalya 11:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Leave the current system as it is now; significant contributors will not be able to pass articles, but will be able to fail them.
Pros
  • Recognition as GA will continue to mean that an article is not only "good", but actually good for wikipedia. — JEREMY 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Cons
  • Controversial articles with strong feelings by 2 sides may make articles unable to maintain GA status, regardless of whether they fit the standards or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homestarmy (talk • contribs)
Comments
This is the default position, and I'm yet to hear convincing argument that changing it will improve the project. (Also, Natalya, when you say "Controversial articles with strong feelings by 2 sides may make articles unable to maintain GA status, regardless of whether they fit the standards or not", I'm only able to agree up to the first comma. I believe no article that is the subject of ongoing disagreement amongst significant contributors can be said to fit the standards — which is why the criteria say "...is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.") — JEREMY 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Err, actually, I added that con argument, I just didn't know we needed to sign them. And disputes don't necessarily have to be over content, nor do they have to result in edit wars. Homestarmy 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not allow significant contributors to fail articles; the disputes page provides an appropriate place for significant contributors to disagree with a decision either way.
Pros
  • In a situation involving a contentious article, more significant contributors are likely to feel satisfied with the decision. — JEREMY 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Cons
  • In a situation involving a contentious article, the significant contributors who are not satisfied with the decision will tend to be disproportionately dissatisfied with the decision. — JEREMY 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
The GA system isn't supposed to be a horribly necessary must-have system, there's no reason why instantaneous decisions necessarily have to be used on determining an articles merit. Homestarmy 14:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Homestarmy that "the GA system isn't supposed to be a horribly necessary must-have system". If an article doesn't get a GA listing, it's not the end of the world. — JEREMY 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Do not allow significant contributors to fail articles, but have somewhere where significant contributors can add their input before a decision is made. (This could be applied to passing or failing articles)
Pros
Cons
As per previous question. I personally can't see the distinction between a pre- and a post-vote dispute resolution protocol. (Natalya, could you explain why you listed "The disputes page only comes into effect after a decision has been made" under Cons in the previous solution? I'd suggest merging this question with the previous one.) — JEREMY 16:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


  • If a significant contributor wants to fail an article, the decision must be reviewed by an impartial (non-significant contributor) editor before it is enacted upon.
Pros
Cons
  • Defeats the any person can pass, fail or delist an article ideal, turning it into a downsized FAC. Highway Rainbow Sneakers
Comments
Horribly over complicated (see my above con), GA is supposed to be simplistic, not hoopla third opinions. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure this will make the pain go away. How are we going to judge the impartiality of the "impartial editor"? (Would they have to have demonstrably and overwhelming exhibited empathy in their previous dealings, for example?) This seems a bit like sending every contentious case to informal mediation.
In the end, there really are only two basic choices: the status quo or an increase in general disharmony. The reason veto options are designed into just about every cooperative system including partnership agreements, the UN security council and the GA guidelines is that they provide a reduction in the "mean dissatisfaction level". In our case it means a few less editors get the warm fuzzies, but nobody's face gets rubbed in shit. — JEREMY 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If a signifigant editor wants to fail an article, that's what the dispute page is for, another editor can notice the dispute and decide for themselves or wait for other editors to chip in :/. Homestarmy 17:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have removed the pros and cons that I initially put it, as it is more important that you as participants put in the pros and cons that you see. What is hoped to be gotten out of this is to see if any of the options are on the right track to something that everyone can generally agree upon (again, if everyone agreed, we would not need mediation :). It's likely not, but at least we can see what is absoultely unacceptable, and what could be modified/combined to be a possible solution. -- Natalya 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Crafting possible solutions: Part II

In hindsight, I realize that myself listing out possibilities is not be the best way to find a solution that everyone can work with. With that in mind, I'd like to move onto this second section. Below I've listed a couple of main observations that I've gotten thoughout this process. With those in mind, I'd like everyone involved to list two things in the "Solution suggestions" secion:

  1. The solution that you would be most happy with.
  2. A solution that includes some compromises but that you can still accept.

The second one is the most important one! Remember, we are trying to find a solution to the problem, and that involves compromising. We want to end up with everyone relatively satisfied, even if they haven't ended up with exactly what they initially wanted. Try and think about the opposing viewpoint, and how you can incoporate some of it into your idea. -- Natalya 02:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Natalya's observations

From the discussion, the only real disagreement we have to deal with is significant contributors being able to fail articles. Although that's what the discussion started out as, it escalated into a larger discussion, so it is good that the problem has been re-narrowed down to what it originally started with.

Viewpoints have been narrowed down. One side is that significant contributors should not be able to fail articles, and if there is a disagreement, they can use the disputes page. The other side is that significant contributors should be able to fail articles outright. Although these are different viewpoints, I've seen all of the participating users show respect and a willingness to discuss; therefore, I believe that a good compromise can be arrived upon. -- Natalya 02:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution suggestions

Well if a comprimise gets too convoluted, it won't really be worth it for such an ordinarily informal system :/. Homestarmy 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we keep the current rules, and add the following:

  1. Only editors registered for more than three months and with more than 300 main namespace edits in addition to any edits on the article in question can nominate, grant or fail a GA. (Others, including unregistered editors, can comment — or ask questions — at any stage.)
  2. All failed GAs, to which at least one editor who meets the above criteria disagrees, will be moved to the disputes page.
  3. The editor who failed the GA will be required to answer any and all questions asked of him or her which relate to his or her reasoning in relation to failing the GA, for so long as others continue to ask such questions, or a period of three months, whichever comes first.
  4. Editors will be expected to provide answers to any outstanding questions of this type within one week. Should this situation not be maintained for any reason, any eligible editor may renominate the article for GA immediately.
  5. At the end of the three-month period, an article in dispute for which a consensus that it does not meet GA criteria has not been established may be renominated, as above.

There's probably a more concise way to describe them, but in any case I hope these additions might offer some balance of responsibility to the existing veto provisions of the GA rules. — JEREMY 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: This (above) proposed sulution, which I am not even sure I understand, seems incredible complicated. Furthermore it fails to adress the problem that 1 out of 100 experienced editors working on a article can fail a nomination and keep it that way for 3 months (and after that, I guess, fail it again and start over). --Anjoe 12:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you are identifying a feature as a bug. — JEREMY 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to suggest a more straight-forward solution:

  1. Anyone can nominate an article, but only non-significant contributors can fail or grant GA-status.
  2. If anyone disagree with the failing or granting they can go to the dispute-page to try to convince others.
  3. If after a dispute there forms a consensus among non-significant contributors, that the first failing or granting was wrong - it can be undone.
  4. If an article fails after a dispute it can only be renominated after a reasonable amount of time and/or effort.

There you have it: Simplicity, informality, neutrality. Please help me understand why this solution should be inferior. --Anjoe 11:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion:

I believe the solution is inferior because it allows the imposition of GA status in a situation in which it might seriously disaffect a significant contributor to an article. Veto powers prevents this. It is always easier to accept a situation in which something you like is not considered exemplary by everyone, than it is to accept a situation in which something you are unable to tolerate is represented as exemplary by others. — JEREMY 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Neither solution is inferior; they are both well-thought out options from somewhat different points of view. Both are possibilities. I have made areas for discussion under each proposed solution, please discuss your thoughts as well as adding any other solutions that are thought of. One thing, when discussion, remember no personal attacks, and try to comment on something specific; instead of saying "I don't like that idea", try saying "I don't like that idea because of xyz. Could we change it to abc?", or something along the lines. That way, the discussion can facilitate crafting these solutions into one that works for everybody. -- Natalya 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The discussion above looks like we are coming to a bit of a temporary impasse. Here is how I see it: we don't want articles to be granted GA status if the status is in question. At the same time, we don't want articles to be unduly failed. Right now, the two sides of the argument are very different; either allow significant contributors to be able to fail articles, or don't allow them to fail them at all. A suggestion might be to meet somewhere in the middle - don't allow significant contributors to fail articles themselves, but give them an opportunity to voice their concerns before the decision is made. That way, they are able to make sure their opinions are heard without having to go through the dispute process (while it is a useful process, the idea here is to cause less disputes in the first place). At the same time, non-significant contributors will still be making the actual decision. -- Natalya 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Natalya, I'm unable to discern any significant difference between your suggestion that we "don't allow significant contributors to fail articles themselves, but give them an opportunity to voice their concerns before the decision is made" and the positions advocated by the editors lobbying to change the GA criteria. (In fact, it appears to offer less than the additions suggested by Anjoe, by implying not only that the veto will be removed, but that significant contributors might now be prevented from voicing their concerns at certain unspecified stages of the procedure other than "before the decision is made".) Can you please explain how you think your suggestion addresses the concerns I have outlined in my defence of the status quo position to date? — JEREMY 02:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition to my question immediately above, I'm afraid I must object to your summary of the commonalities in this discussion, specifically "At the same time, we don't want articles to be unduly failed." I am personally happy (or at least, sanguine) about articles being failed for any reason whatsoever. I realise my position is not in accord with the position represented in the current GA criteria — which require that an article not meet certain tests before being eligible to be failed — but it's something I personally feel quite strongly about. However, rather than advocating for my simpler, more open solution, I have been prepared to leave the consensus position as previously established by the editors who put the GA criteria together unchallenged, in the interests of compromise. — JEREMY 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Jeremy, you are fine with leaving the criteria as they stand? (I am assuming yes, with your previous comment "This is the default position, and I'm yet to hear convincing argument that changing it will improve the project."). This is a possibility, though I am not sure how much your fellow mediation-participants will agree, what with the concerns that have been brought up. Still, it would be good to just see what the current opinions on the subject are. For everyone, what are your current thoughts on leaving the passing/failing criteria (as seen at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations) as they currently stand? -- Natalya 12:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would prefer the current rules to the rather complex and formal solution put forward by Jeremy, which doesn't really solve anything. --Anjoe 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions:

To Jeremy: Even after this long "debate" the motives for your rather extreme position still stands alltogether unclear to me. I (and maybe others) have been wondering what exactly is being objected so strongly to. I will therefore ask you some questions with the purpose of trying to clear this up; and the two first would be: Has your fear of the slightest weakening of the critia for an article becoming GA anything to do with a fear of this being a pass to enter the projected Wikipedia Version 1.0? And if yes, does it at all move you that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations is an independent nomination-project and that it doesn't mention GA at all? (Which means that GA-status, as of now, does not even get you nomination eligibility for that project). I do not know if these questions are relevant, but all I can do is guess. --Anjoe 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My motives are simple: as I have said in a variety of ways above, I believe vetos reduce disharmony. Let me give you two examples to help explain why I have come to this position. I worked for some years as part of the three-person editorial committee of a short story magazine. We had a veto provision in our informal charter which could be used in a situation where two editors wanted to publish and one didn't, but the one was unable to convince the two of his reasoning. It was used three times, once by me and twice by one of the other editors (the third didn't ever see the need). As a result, we didn't publish a story I can't even remember, and we also failed to publish two excellent stories, one the best that particular author had ever written and the other by an author who is now regarded as world class in the field. However, neither I, nor the editor who vetoed the two stories I would have published in an eyeblink, ended up walking away from the project, we all remained friends and the project continued for another seven years. In contrast, I was later part of the three-person management team of a nightclub, in which I was the principal most interested in design and aesthetics. In one instance, during the design process for a particular flyer, the other two managers decided that we had spent enough time on the problem and that they wanted to go with the then-current version. I (who had put by far the most time and effort into the flyer) wanted to spend more time on getting it right. They decided to out-vote me, and we didn't have a veto provision in our agreement (we hadn't even discussed what would happen in such cases). I refused to go along with the majority decision (in other words, I insisted on an informal veto) and this confrontation caused a significant rift in the management team, contributed to the club's eventual closure, and has never really been resolved to this day. Vetos work, or so many organisations would not include them. (Note that I know of none which include a "positive veto" forcing others to accept something, only a "negative veto" which means that nobody has to accept anything.)
And no, I wasn't thinking about Wikipedia Version 1.0. — JEREMY 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your thoughts, Jeremy. They were very insightful to read. Here's where things stand: we can keep trying to figure out some way to combine the ideals of both sides of the issue, or we can decide to accept the guidelines for failing articles as they are now. I will be happy to help with either, but there is no need to draw this out longer then it needs to go. Even though accepting the current guidelines might seem like nothing has been accomplished, that is far from the truth, since this mediation started because of a disagreement over them. Either way, I appreciate everyone's thoughtful contributions to this discussion. Let me know what you would like to do. -- Natalya 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To Jeremy: Okay, I appreciate your personal story, and I actually agree broadly with your thoughts on veto-rights as a way to reduce disharmony. But let me pose you another question then: Don't you think that there has to be some lower limit to the use of veto-rights in general?
What is the GA-status in praxis? As opposed to FA-status, what are the conseqences other than a nice template on the talkpage, hidden from the usual reader of Wikipedia? - There are really none other! What happens when you apply for GA-status is that you get a review of your article. If this is a failing from a user already working tightly on the article it doesn't matter - because you already know his or hers opinion. If you get failed by a neutral editor, you might get some good critique. If it on the other hand get approved - you get your template (and that's it). Doesn't it somehow strike you as out of touch - or even a little petty - that an involved user should be so desperate that an article not recieve this neutral review and then maybe this nice template, that he/she would just have to have the right to put his or hers foot down on this matter (other than through starting a dispute)? Please consider this carefully: I believe you have good arguments, good argumentational skill and even a rich experience. But please consider whether you really are applying those things on the right project. If we were talking Featured Article, I would support you - indeed very staunchly. Yours truly. --Anjoe 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Anjoe, you make some good points, and I have given them considerable thought. Yes, there should be some "lower limit" to vetos, at least as far as wikipedia's concerned; I don't believe a single editor can expect to simply veto article content, for example. And you're right that GA is less significant than FA. However, GA involves more than a talk-page template — which in any case is visible to a reader who clicks on "discussion"; it involves a listing on the GA page, which identifies the second-best 900 articles in the encyclopedia. I think your points about GA potentially providing a neutral review are important, but are there no ways to achieve a neutral critique otherwise? (I can think of several.) Were I trying to argue to change the GA criteria to include a veto, your "it just isn't that important" argument would carry more weight. However in this case you are arguing to change the status quo, which as I see it requires that you not only raise doubts about the position you wish to change (which you have done successfully), but that you present a preponderance of evidence in support of your proposed change. As such, I would ask you to detail the negative consequences, as you see them, of retaining the current GA rules. — JEREMY 04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess what you want me to do, is to go into a more broad perspective on the effects of things going on as they are without my proposal. Since you really are making me work for it, I hope you do not complain over the size of my response :-)
What worries me in essens is whether the Good Articles Project is playing a meaningfull part in the variety of assessment-projects. I am in other words worried about the project's proper place in Wikipedia as a whole and about some internal confusion in the project about that 'proper place'. To examine these things more closely, I would first recommend Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment where one can find an (in my opinion good) overview of the different assesment-projects Wikipedia have. Here GA seems listed as only the third best status - although I don't know much about 'A-class' articles nor 'B-class'. In any case: The descriptions there are only intepretations by some people. To investigate for real one would have go to the real roots, and I reckoned a detailed comparison between the GA-criteria and the FA-criteria would be where to start. Here's a list of what I could find:
  1. FA:"our very best work", GA:no comparable qoute.
  2. FA:"compelling, even brilliant [prose]", GA:"compelling prose".
  3. FA:"comprehensive [coverage]", GA:"broad in its coverage".
  4. FA:"complemented where appropiate by inline citations", GA:"inline citations is desirable but not a mandatory requirement".
  5. FA:"uncontroversial in its neutrality", GA:"fairly and without bias".
  6. FA:"appropiate length", GA:"any length".
  7. FA:"substatial but not overwhelming table of contents", GA:table of contents not mentioned.
And there may be even more details, but what this already shows of confusion is firstly that GA-criteria really is not "very similar" to FA-critia as it is otherwise claimed beneath the GA-criteria! Secondly, it should strike one as odd that it is mentioned several places (including again, beneath the critia) that the Good Article Project is "designed, primarily with short articles in mind" as opposed to the Featured Article Project, when the FA-critia really only mentions "appropiate length". In other words: any article can get FA-status, - also short articles as long as a 'comprehensive coverage' only amounts to a short text given a small subject. This means (and I may get into trouble for this) that what is often understood as GA-status unique raison d'être really consist in (let's say) a false self-concept: There is no article for which Good Article-status should be the highest aspiration possible. The GA-project is not a nessasary project for articles too short to (ever) become featured, it is only a stepping-stone. In other words: The GA-project is only part of the proces - it is not part of the goal(s) of Wikipedia. Connecting these observations to the question of veto-rights, my point is that veto-rights on a subject isn't nessasary or even suitable as long as no decision that can be made can be final in any real sense. Where I view the 'final' projects in Wikipedia as only being the Featured articles-project and Wikipedia Version 1.0. That we in fact have veto-rights as it is, is a third odd thing in my lists of confusions. A fourth strange sign could be the introduction-text on the nomination- and list-page talking about the "excellent content" of Good Articles. Doesn't that strike one as a little too strong when the term used in the title of the project is in fact only 'good'? A more sober assesment is maybe to be found in Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where it says: "A good treatment of the subject. [...] Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job."...
I guess that what I am trying to say is this: I have come to believe that the Good Articles Project in the future could be on its way to become (should we say) unimportant, if the current rules (and incorrect self conscience) prevails. What is needed is a project that purely and recognizable just forms another stage in the proces of bettering articles. As it is now the project seems to be trying to be a half-way-house between something grandiose final (which it isn't) and some pragmatic part of the editing and reviewing proces (which it is). For the project to be able to play its proper part in the whole, it is, in my view, therefore nessasary that we begin to root out some of the internal inconsistencies and contradictions which I have been trying to make clear in the above. The veto-provisions being one, but not the only one, of these. The alternative is of course to establish another competing project - let's say Wikipedia:Promising Articles - which in time could do and be what Good Articles should have done and been and in time make Good Articles obsolute as a project, - but maybe you would agree with this not being the best of solutions. On top of these things a have read several complaints on this talkpage about the project moving to slow. I believe the reason for this may have something to do with the above points: If the project conforms to its prober place, it will be more usefull for everybody, and maybe more popular - but we can only hope.
I hope I have made some "negative consequences" (in my view) clear to you in the above, and that they satisfy you to some degree at least. I am quite sure that I also have antagonized other editors with my opinions, but so be it. I want to apologize for, the delay of my answer and for some of my bad prose and spelling, but I can't spend all my nights on Wikipedia. :-) Respond (if you want to) when you have the time. Yours truly/--Anjoe 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed response, Anjoe. I see now where you're coming from, and I agree with you in large part about the way GA might better fit the requirements of the project. Perhaps getting rid of GA (ie. an "official designation") and replacing it with "Articles Being Prepared for FA candidacy" (or whatever one might like to call it — ie. a "less official designation") would be the way to go. Then such articles would be seen only as "being actively improved" rather than already "Good" (ie. recognised as wikipedia exemplars), and the veto provision would be less vital. In fact, I'd certainly support such a restructuring or rolling-up of GA into a specialised Peer Review process (although I don't have the time to participate actively in it). However, until such time as GA is changed in the way you're suggesting, the veto provisions designed into it from the start will remain essential. — JEREMY 04:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Listen, what I am proposing in the above is 4 changes:
  1. Getting rid of the veto-provision.
  2. Correcting the launguage about the relation of the GA to the FA, so this correlates to reality.
  3. Toning down the rethoric about GA and small articles, which does not conform to reality.
  4. Removing the confusing rethoric about Good being "excellent", which is contrary to ordinary usage.
As it is easy to recognize, the last three things is only of cosmetic importance. The one substantial change I am proposing is the abandonment of the veto-provision, but what I guess you want is another cosmetic change, namely to change the name of the project as a whole, before you would allow it. But as you probably know: This is a cosmetic change that would never happen! It would be like asking a big company without competition, to change its name because some people otherwise could misunderstand it. What you therefore effectively are doing, is to block any major or minor reform of the Good Article Project alltogether, although you seem to like it in broad terms. At the same time that you "don't have the time to participate actively" in any restructuring (or any reviewing?). As I see it - all of your resistance comes down to an interpretation of the word 'good' that you seem to hold on to even when maybe you have realized that the GA-criteria and the project's place in the whole does not support it. Is that it, in your view? - I am only trying to do what is the better thing for Wikipedia as a whole. Please consider whether you, in light of the argument, possible could change your opnion to at least neutral on the matter, and let people working on this project now and in the future decide what they think. With sincere respect, yours truly/--Anjoe 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The one substantial change I am proposing is the abandonment of the veto-provision, but what I guess you want is another cosmetic change, namely to change the name of the project as a whole, before you would allow it. I think that's a fair assessment — except that I disagree with the characterisation "cosmetic". What you therefore effectively are doing, is to block any major or minor reform of the Good Article Project alltogether. I don't understand what you mean by this. I am attempting to prevent a change to one aspect of the GA system, not blocking "any major or minor reform". all of your resistance comes down to an interpretation of the word 'good' that you seem to hold on to even when maybe you have realized that the GA-criteria and the project's place in the whole does not support it. Is that it, in your view? No, it isn't. This is not about the definition of "good", but the definition of a wikipedia Good Article. I am only trying to do what is the better thing for Wikipedia as a whole. As am I. — JEREMY 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jeremy and Anjoe, just popping in to say that I'm following the discussion, but I'm impressed at how you guys are managing, and don't feel the need to interject. Keep up the civility and respect! -- Natalya 10:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are impressed. I am myself a bit impressed that we seem to be covering a little new territory all the time. Unfortunately I've got a feeling that the end could be looming near. No point in repeating ourselves too much. So stay close anyway. Cheers/ --Anjoe 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To Jeremy: As I have signaled to Natalya, my points on the matter are beginning to run out, but I've got at least one more perspective for you before we maybe call it a day. What I want you to consider is the nomination proceses, not the critias, of the projects "above" GA: The fact is that neither W:1.0 nor FA have any veto-provisions as it is now. Only the concept of "consensus" seem to be mentioned (both places), and on W:1.0 this is defined as "at least a 5:1 ratio of support votes to objection votes". (This definition is also what I seem to be picking up in different discussions). I guess that means that you only would have to gather a majority of 80% to promote an article to either FA-status and/or to secure it a place in the first publication of the english Wikipedia (CD-rom or paper). We may both think this is too lenient, but that's how it is at the moment - like it or not. Far above on this talkpage you mentioned that some editors might be "scandalised by the very existence" of certain articles and be forced (by sheer feeling of integrity?) to "walk away from wikipedia" if these kind of articles were to be promoted. But as you probably can see, no safty net in regard to this situation seem to exist for assesment-projects above GA. If, say I, wanted to promote a certain kind of minor controversial article, why should I even consider going through the Good Article Project? Why wouldn't I just skip the risk of getting vetoed and go directly to FA, since GA-status is no requirement for FA-nomination, anyway? Suppose I got my FA-nomination passed, - where would that leave my enemies, the integrity-filled editors, and where would it leave the bypassed GA-project? -- You have been arguing that the burden of proof is on me, since my proposal would change status quo. But there is in fact a bigger status quo out there undercutting our status quo, which you seem to ignore. I would therefore like to ask of you to provide us with reasons to why your righteously indignant editors really would be any worse of if in fact my proposal would come through. --Anjoe 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If, say I, wanted to promote a certain kind of minor controversial article, why should I even consider going through the Good Article Project? Why wouldn't I just skip the risk of getting vetoed and go directly to FA, since GA-status is no requirement for FA-nomination, anyway? This is a good point — but you're supporting my case here. Rather than giving up veto in GA, I would argue we need it in the other systems. Given GA is the only one with a veto, I would argue even harder against changes to its criteria which would make them as flawed as FA and WP1.0's criteria. In counter-argument, given both FA and WP1.0 don't have a veto provision, doesn't this provide an alternate pathway for article promotion if the GA path is "blocked" by an intransigent editor? I would therefore like to ask of you to provide us with reasons to why your righteously indignant editors really would be any worse of if in fact my proposal would come through. The loss of veto in GA would simply make the existing situation worse. — JEREMY 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In counter-argument, given both FA and WP1.0 don't have a veto provision, doesn't this provide an alternate pathway for article promotion if the GA path is "blocked" by an intransigent editor? I am not sure I understand what you mean with that, please rephrase. --Anjoe 10:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If an article you think worth promoting is vetoed at GA nomination, you could bypass GA and go to FA instead, where there is no veto. — JEREMY 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I understood your comment in the first place, but I guess I just didn't believe you would use a argument like that, which could be described as something like a 'nobody-gains-nobody-jalous-compromise'. You know, á la, if we can't agree who's baby it is, let's cut it in halfs - so noone's jalous of the other... I hope you realize my frustration, when you consider that what I want is veto-provisons in the projects above GA, but not in the GA itself. Take the concrete example that started this whole thing, namely Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which I think clearly deserves GA-status, but which I don't think one moment deserves FA-status, although this is exactly what it will be able to get in a few months if it just improves some small bit, and the event seems to be non-ongoing still. And I do think it will be FA-nominated (and WP1.0-nominated too) because there is considerable discontent by a lot of editors of diverse opnion for the lack of recognition of the enormous work-effort put into that article. I think the blocking of the GA-promotion really will accelerate the article's speed toward straight FA-nomination, and likewise with a lot of other articles; and the GA-project will in time only be recognised by more people as something ignorable. The GA-project with it's veto-provisons, which appearantly seems rather unique on Wikipedia, will in time only become the laughingstock of the community. Defending the GA-veto is like setting up exceptional security in the alley-door while leaving the front door wide open, which normally would get people asking why not, if one is so concerned about the back-door, we just bolt the damn thing up and be done with it. Since I alrady have spelled out my view on the justification of there being a GA-project in the first place, and my vision for it's future, please answer me this last question: Why do you think we shouldn't just close down this (GA) project? I don't think you have made that clear yet. --Anjoe 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can get a veto provision into FA, please go ahead; I suspect its prominence already provides sufficient barrier to contentious articles. I don't see anyone laughing at GA as it is, and suspect it's doing a good enough job. If you want to close GA down, I'm not sure why you're putting this much effort into changing its provisions. — JEREMY 11:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sure you have figured out, that I don't want to close down GA. But since you apparently see the honour of getting GA-status approximately on the same footing as getting FA-status, and since you apparently don't care whether people start bypassing GA, then I am not really sure why you would want to keep the GA-project. --Anjoe 12:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You didn't read my previous response carefully. I don't mind if people ignore GA and try for FA instead, because I believe that non-FA quality articles will not get through FA. — JEREMY 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From the impression I am getting, it seems like this issue is larger than who should/shouldn't be able to veto articles, and extends into the entire useage of the Good Article and Featured Article status. Would you two like to continue discussing all sorts of matters here, or direct the issues that have been brought up in more specific places? I will be glad to continue with this, but it may be more useful if the bigger picture issues are addressed at their appropriate venues (if either of you even choose to address them after this). -- Natalya 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really extend more broadly for me — I'm just responding to Anjoe. This discussion continues to be about whether there is any justification for removing the veto provisions from GA; and right now, it seems as if Anjoe is the only one who's pushing for that any more. I'd be happy to support him in attempting to bring veto to FA and WP1.0, but don't have a particular interest in pursuing this elsewhere otherwise. — JEREMY 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the bigger picture should be unuseful in this discussion, if the bigger picture relates to the matter at hand. But in any case: I have still some points I could try to make, but at the same time the discussion so far has satisfied me, and I believe I have understood (and we have documented) Jeremy's position to the point that not much more substance can be retrieved, I think. On top of this, I am ready to accept that Jeremy won't be persuaded no matter the effort. Therefore I could rest my case if you, Natalya, think so would be best. It is correct that I seem to be the only one willing to keep on discussing with Jeremy, but I think it maybe too much to assume that I am "the only one who's pushing" for the change any more. But if Jeremy is so confident in this, we could have an honest vote on the matter (and I would of course lose big, being the only one pushing). --Anjoe 16:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the discussion seemed to be getting less focused on the veto power issue and whatnot so I just kinda didn't respond to anything :/. I still think the veto rules need to be changed.... Homestarmy 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We could put out a straw poll to all Good article contributors (and others), but I don't know how much that would accomplish, since it wouldn't make any decisions, and we already know both sides of the issue. Still, if all parties wanted to do a straw poll, we could.

In general, I am satisfied with where this discussion has gone. Even though there have been no actual changes, there has been much understanding between all users on all sides of the issue, and it seems to be a much calmer situation. With no immediate possibilities having been found to appease both sides, the discussion will probably continue just as discussion. -- Natalya 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy: Do you want a straw poll, or alternatively, would you be against one? --Anjoe 09:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • More broadly then: does *anyone* object to a straw poll. Speak now or forever ... (you know the rest). --Anjoe 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
After all this, are we back to voting? A straw poll of people who happen to be passing this page will be meaningless. What about some more creative solutions, incorporating the veto but alleviating some of what you see as the problems with the veto (which are entirely unclear to me; I've explained my POV, but you really haven't explained yours)? — JEREMY 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, a straw poll wouldn't be able to make any decisions, it would just be used to gauge the feelings of editors. -- Natalya 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to poll the 30 editors that has enlisted in the Good Article Project to this date. I think that would neutralize Jeremy's objection of the "meaninglessness" of en open straw poll. That is, if you and others think that such a closed poll would be in the spirit of Wikipedia. I would very much like to "gauge the feelings" of those who have been working on this project since the beginning, that is, excluding myself and Jeremy. If it happen to be that many of these 30 editors in fact don't support my proposal, I for one would retract it without any regret. --Anjoe 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If Jeremy would also like to have the poll, I'll have no problem notifying the 30 participants about the poll, and running it here. Do you have any feelings about non-participants running across the poll and wanting to add their vote? -- Natalya 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there would be a section where they could add a comment, but a vote should be removed - I think. Apart from a yes or no to absolut veto provisions, there should also be a possibility for voting neutral and "I think this closed poll is a bad idea". I would like to set it up myself (even on my own talkpage if it wasn't accepted here), but the next few days (until the 7.) I will be real busy in real life, so I won't be able to help until then I'm afraid. --Anjoe 11:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds appropriate. I don't see why it couldn't be run on this talk page, in its own section below or so. And the timing should be fine, it should give Jeremy ample time to decide how he feels on the matter. -- Natalya 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If there's to be a poll, why is it to be limited to the GA Project people (ie. a small, self-selected special interest group)? I'd have thought the issue of changing GA criteria would have a much broader constituency. — JEREMY 14:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, they are the ones that supposedly have created and sustained the current rules. But what other group(s) would you like to see included, and why? --Anjoe 11:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy: you must decide which way you want it: Are we to ask the many that happen to come by or the few who is sticking with the project? Let's get this discussion moving. --Anjoe 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion of polling on changes like this should be advertised as widely as possible, starting with the Village Pump. — JEREMY 12:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So is anything going to come of this or what? The original article which started this controversy is back on the disputes page, and currently, it looks like consensus is to over-ride the veto-er. Homestarmy 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am going further at the moment. This is mainly because my biggest WikiP-effort lie at the danish version (where I am an administrator), and I simply haven't got the time to inform myself about the english-version procedures for going further with this, maybe requesting a formal vote and so on. I really hope that some good have come from the above pretty detailed discussion of the matter. That something have to be done on this matter seems very clear to me, and therefore I believe it will be done eventually (this IS Wikipedia after all). In all cases I think it may even be constructive for me to step aside at this time because the discussion at some point had developed into something that could be mistaken for a personal fight between me and Jeremy. On top of this I will squarely admit to being unneutral in regard to the JPCC article that started all this, and since my arguments all the time have hinged on a wish for greater neutrality among GA-reviewers, maybe I should pull myself out of this discussion when I even remotely can be accused of non-neutrality on the issue of changes to the GA-rules. I want to wish everybody good luck in making sensible changes to the GA-rules which can secure the future and relevance for the project. If anybody got questions they can leave them at my discussionpage. Yours truly/--Anjoe 14:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Anjoe. I just want to thank everyone for participating in this discussion in a very calm and open manner - you truly impressed me. I'll still be around if issues flare up again, but otherwise it looks like this mediation is closed. -- Natalya 18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Natalya for your mediation, and to everyone for patience and good faith. I'm not sure we've resolved anything, but at least the issues have been discussed and outlined in detail. — JEREMY 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_3&oldid=1050380039"