User talk:ErrantX/Essays/Core topic problem

My pet theory

The value placed on FAs and GAs and the fact that these are attributed to single, identifiable authors incentivizes writing many FAs or GAs on topics that are easy, ie obscure and discrete. Having 3 FA credits is something to tack on one's wall, while "making the Disability article suck less" isn't. I've noticed that people give out a lot fewer barnstars than when I began here, so these audited processes are often the only way to get the shiny objects that human beings crave so much. --Danger (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes, that I think is one of the major parts of the problem. Even I have to confess there is more impetus for me to massage my speciality topics to FA status than to try and make computer a reasonable article. Ideally we could do with a process to award people who get an article from a pile of crap to something workable --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My theory of sourcing

Core topics are so broad that they are hard to find sources for. Our last editing friday was Theatre. It is a "core" topic and currently a start class article. Part of the reason it failed is that we couldn't find any reliable sources to back up what we were looking for. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never considered that as a problem, but you're right. How do you decide on scope? What RS's say, and which RS's will tell you that? Or take the logical approach? It is a meta level that our verification process isn't completely able to cope. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the best way might be to figure out the next level of topics (i.e. below Theatre) and then simply summarize those as the topic introduction. It won't work for all, but it might be a start. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing=

BTW, anyone reading/commenting feel entirely free to add your ideas on the problems to the essay itself. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]