Difference between revisions of "Submissions:2019/Quality vs Usefulness: Can we have more FAs on vital topics?"
(Created page with "{{WCNA 2019 Session Submission |theme=Reliability of Information<br />+ Other |type=Lightning Talk |abstract=Is there a trend that numerous high-quality articles are written...") |
SuperHamster (talk | contribs) (Allocated time for lightning talk) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WCNA 2019 Session Submission |
{{WCNA 2019 Session Submission |
||
+ | |status=Lightning |
||
|theme=Reliability of Information<br />+ Other |
|theme=Reliability of Information<br />+ Other |
||
|type=Lightning Talk |
|type=Lightning Talk |
Latest revision as of 07:24, 11 October 2019
This submission has been designated as a lightning talk at WikiConference North America 2019.
Title:
- Quality vs Usefulness: Can we have more FAs on vital topics?
Theme:
- Reliability of Information
+ Other
Type of session:
- Lightning Talk
Abstract:
Is there a trend that numerous high-quality articles are written about very specialized topics (e.g. a specific battle or historical biography), while general articles that are useful to a wide audience (e.g. "vital" articles) does not get as much quality? A quick look based on comparing FA/GA status and view count statistics indicates some evidence for this, at least for recent years.
Relevant links: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ENFA https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ENGA
Academic Peer Review option:
- No
Author name:
E-mail address:
- Use "Email this user" function
Wikimedia username:
- HaEr48
Affiliated organization(s):
Estimated time:
- 5 mins
Preferred room size:
Special requests:
Have you presented on this topic previously? If yes, where/when?:
If your submission is not accepted, would you be open to presenting your topic in another part of the program? (e.g. lightning talk or unconference session)
- only enough content here for a short (lightning talk) session