Why do we need to use something like pi, where we must either write a program to calculate the thing every day or have someone remember exactly what digit we're up to when we could just give Raul 4 10-sided dice of the 0-9 format instead and let him roll numbers? In a decade or so when we hit 10,000, we buy him another d10. -- tjstrf talk 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you factor in all the subjective criteria in the FA selection process? At the moment there are some unwritten rules that would be easy to factor in to the FA selection process (no self-references- eg Jimbo Wales or Wikipedia) but how about stuff like the need for topical variety? At the rate the Indian and Hurricane wikiprojects are churning out FAs, a truly random selector would result in an Indian/Hurricane FA more often than it would if Raul were running it. Also, there are other considerations, like some topics (schools, pop culture) being slightly less prominent than "encyclopedic topics"- I believe that this is proper, and there are plenty of complaints on the main page too when an obscure pop-culture article makes the main page . IMHO, randomly selecting the FAs will result in more complaints of bias, not less, since the articles that receive the most complaints on the main page (indian articles, pokemon etc) will get more representation since they are no longer suppressed. Frankly, as a contributor who has contributed fairly extensively to the FA process (3 featured articles promoted to the main page) I like the way the current system works. and imho this proposition isn't needed. Raul654 is doing an excellent job. Borisblue 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Although you mention in the proposal that "Many users become aggrieved when User:Raul654 does not pick the article they have worked on for days", I don't see the problem with this system as compared with your proposition. Won't this have the same problem? People may be even more frustrated that there is no person to ask regarding topic selection - while Raul654's (probably reasonable) claim to impartial topic selection may be unverifiable, it is probably a good thing that there is a human who can arbitrate such a decision, or change it if necessary. The "override option", the analogous process in your proposition, would produce the same problems that you cite regarding daily discussions: "a daily debate on what FA should be tomorrows TFA would be a disaster of Pompeiian proportions. A daily train-wreck that is would pit user against user and create endless bitterness." Since the "override option" is a necessary prerequisite for this proposition, I question its feasibility. Nihiltres 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't fix it! Really, I am not sure this is needed. Unless and until we can see that Raul654 has a problem, do we really need to create a solution? It is impossible to create any situation where people will think like you want them to. Simply because you want people to be satisfied with the TFA process does not mean they ever will be. I fail to see how creating a random number generator to do the job will actually work? Besides, anytime you create a system that is designed to be automated, you open up the system to abuse. Someone will come up with a way to game this system. They always do. You can't game the system now, since Raul is a real person who can be trusted to make good decisions ( WP:AGF ). Again, this seems to be a rather WP:CREEPy proposal, and I am not sure we need it. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
SGGH 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
it has a real clever name. Nice work. 203.97.51.149 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In the 24 hour period you mention, how are users supposed to sift through the article, make sure that it's of FA quality, find a good free use image of it, write up a summary for it, and get everything ready for the main page? I can think of a few former featured articles that might have been put on the main page under this policy before they lost their status, and they would have been horrible examples. In short, I think this is stupid, utterly useless bureaucracy. Ral315 » 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposal, although completely offered in good faith and constructively, seems to be written from a stance that fails to appreciate the finer points of how the TFA system works, how FAs are promoted and the democratic process that lead to Raul being voted in as TFA director. Systemic bias is inherent in promoted FAs and a truly random system would only exacerbate the complaints (random isn't random enough). Raul does a remarkable job of coordinating scheduled TFAs, distributing the small pool of promoted FA subjects to reduce the systemic bias as well as bear the occasional torrent of abuse from those perceiving purposeful bias and conspiracies where there is none. The poor bastard ;) -- Monotonehell 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that most of what's on this talk page is criticism, but maybe you haven't stopped and contemplated the whole proposal. Currently, one user has all the power and say (regardless of whatever other new user gives a "suggestion" that week). It's ridiculous that this would be, in a "society" where we're not supposed to be practicing any form of government! If you have problems with some of the specifics of the plan, address that specifically, but do not bash the whole proposal. The whole thing is well thought out, in my eyes, and so I (and probably David) would appreciate more specificity to your problems so that we can fix the proposal to the way that would work best for everyone. (This is the way Wikipedia should work; not the TFA way!) └ Jared┘┌ talk┐ 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-- 74.13.128.153 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see why we need to change the way it is chosen. Has Raul654 done anything wrong? Also, you say that, if this policy is accepted, we will have a Proximity Rule. Who will be appointed to be the person who decides what is too close, or if two topics are too closely related? ffm ✎talk 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, if we really want to do this, is Pi really a wise choice? Wouldn't a random number generator be a better idea? Also, has the proposor read the Pi article?
Should we really be using Pi as a 'random' number if we don't even know if 0...9 are equally likely in it? Nil Einne 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Really Raul, you should have asked someone else to do it. I am now completely convinced that the FA of the day should be picked through some democratic process and not by fiat, no matter how much you enjoy doing it. No substantive arguments were presented above against the proposition, it was mainly people trying not to make powerful enemies on wikipedia. David Spart ( talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need to use something like pi, where we must either write a program to calculate the thing every day or have someone remember exactly what digit we're up to when we could just give Raul 4 10-sided dice of the 0-9 format instead and let him roll numbers? In a decade or so when we hit 10,000, we buy him another d10. -- tjstrf talk 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you factor in all the subjective criteria in the FA selection process? At the moment there are some unwritten rules that would be easy to factor in to the FA selection process (no self-references- eg Jimbo Wales or Wikipedia) but how about stuff like the need for topical variety? At the rate the Indian and Hurricane wikiprojects are churning out FAs, a truly random selector would result in an Indian/Hurricane FA more often than it would if Raul were running it. Also, there are other considerations, like some topics (schools, pop culture) being slightly less prominent than "encyclopedic topics"- I believe that this is proper, and there are plenty of complaints on the main page too when an obscure pop-culture article makes the main page . IMHO, randomly selecting the FAs will result in more complaints of bias, not less, since the articles that receive the most complaints on the main page (indian articles, pokemon etc) will get more representation since they are no longer suppressed. Frankly, as a contributor who has contributed fairly extensively to the FA process (3 featured articles promoted to the main page) I like the way the current system works. and imho this proposition isn't needed. Raul654 is doing an excellent job. Borisblue 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Although you mention in the proposal that "Many users become aggrieved when User:Raul654 does not pick the article they have worked on for days", I don't see the problem with this system as compared with your proposition. Won't this have the same problem? People may be even more frustrated that there is no person to ask regarding topic selection - while Raul654's (probably reasonable) claim to impartial topic selection may be unverifiable, it is probably a good thing that there is a human who can arbitrate such a decision, or change it if necessary. The "override option", the analogous process in your proposition, would produce the same problems that you cite regarding daily discussions: "a daily debate on what FA should be tomorrows TFA would be a disaster of Pompeiian proportions. A daily train-wreck that is would pit user against user and create endless bitterness." Since the "override option" is a necessary prerequisite for this proposition, I question its feasibility. Nihiltres 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't fix it! Really, I am not sure this is needed. Unless and until we can see that Raul654 has a problem, do we really need to create a solution? It is impossible to create any situation where people will think like you want them to. Simply because you want people to be satisfied with the TFA process does not mean they ever will be. I fail to see how creating a random number generator to do the job will actually work? Besides, anytime you create a system that is designed to be automated, you open up the system to abuse. Someone will come up with a way to game this system. They always do. You can't game the system now, since Raul is a real person who can be trusted to make good decisions ( WP:AGF ). Again, this seems to be a rather WP:CREEPy proposal, and I am not sure we need it. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
SGGH 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
it has a real clever name. Nice work. 203.97.51.149 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In the 24 hour period you mention, how are users supposed to sift through the article, make sure that it's of FA quality, find a good free use image of it, write up a summary for it, and get everything ready for the main page? I can think of a few former featured articles that might have been put on the main page under this policy before they lost their status, and they would have been horrible examples. In short, I think this is stupid, utterly useless bureaucracy. Ral315 » 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposal, although completely offered in good faith and constructively, seems to be written from a stance that fails to appreciate the finer points of how the TFA system works, how FAs are promoted and the democratic process that lead to Raul being voted in as TFA director. Systemic bias is inherent in promoted FAs and a truly random system would only exacerbate the complaints (random isn't random enough). Raul does a remarkable job of coordinating scheduled TFAs, distributing the small pool of promoted FA subjects to reduce the systemic bias as well as bear the occasional torrent of abuse from those perceiving purposeful bias and conspiracies where there is none. The poor bastard ;) -- Monotonehell 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that most of what's on this talk page is criticism, but maybe you haven't stopped and contemplated the whole proposal. Currently, one user has all the power and say (regardless of whatever other new user gives a "suggestion" that week). It's ridiculous that this would be, in a "society" where we're not supposed to be practicing any form of government! If you have problems with some of the specifics of the plan, address that specifically, but do not bash the whole proposal. The whole thing is well thought out, in my eyes, and so I (and probably David) would appreciate more specificity to your problems so that we can fix the proposal to the way that would work best for everyone. (This is the way Wikipedia should work; not the TFA way!) └ Jared┘┌ talk┐ 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-- 74.13.128.153 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see why we need to change the way it is chosen. Has Raul654 done anything wrong? Also, you say that, if this policy is accepted, we will have a Proximity Rule. Who will be appointed to be the person who decides what is too close, or if two topics are too closely related? ffm ✎talk 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, if we really want to do this, is Pi really a wise choice? Wouldn't a random number generator be a better idea? Also, has the proposor read the Pi article?
Should we really be using Pi as a 'random' number if we don't even know if 0...9 are equally likely in it? Nil Einne 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Really Raul, you should have asked someone else to do it. I am now completely convinced that the FA of the day should be picked through some democratic process and not by fiat, no matter how much you enjoy doing it. No substantive arguments were presented above against the proposition, it was mainly people trying not to make powerful enemies on wikipedia. David Spart ( talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)