Difference between revisions of "Submissions:2019/Quality vs Usefulness: Can we have more FAs on vital topics?"

From WikiConference North America
Jump to: navigation, search
(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...")
 
(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:

HaEr48

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