Forum:Change voting for featured article

Archived discussion

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Change voting for featured article | Post

I am, once again, proposing changes to featured articles, specifically in how we select them.

Right now, articles are nominated and voted on together. Once a month, the article with the most votes is chosen, while the runners-up continue to sit on the nominations list until they too have enough votes to win. The issue is, this system essentially guarantees that all articles placed on the list which are at least of adequate quality will eventually be featured. However, this system has a habit of selecting articles that aren't necessarily "good quality" but articles which have just been on the list for a long period of time.

I would like to use a different system, where each article is voted on individually. When an article is nominated for Featured Article, a vote would start which would last a decent length of time, probably 14 - 28 days. People can support or oppose a featured article nomination. At the end of the vote, if there is consensus, the article is added to the Featured Article queue. Several articles can be nominated for Featured Article and be added to the queue, and then be featured one at a time. This is similar to Wikipedia's system, except that they feature daily versus monthly for us.

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 18:55, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support This is a much better system, as it's more of a "systematic" approach than our current system. It should ensure that quality articles get featured, not crappy articles that got nominated years ago. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:09, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - While it does sound like a novel idea, this seems like it would work better in theory than practice. The idea is a bit too complex and I'm fine with using the current system we have now. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:41, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this system already works in practice, not in theory. Wikipedia uses it to elect its articles for featured article status, which represents the best of the wiki, not stuff left over after clearing the backlog, like the old sandwich at the very rear of your locker that you keep forgetting to clean out. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:59, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Wikipedia, other wikis use this or a similar system as well, including WoWWiki, Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, and the Assassin's Creed Wiki, to name a few. It's not a "novel idea" at all, it's tried and tested. The point of Featured Article is to show off the best articles we have, and that doesn't happen when less-then-great articles are able to become featured simply as a result of being on the nominating page for a longer period of time. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 23:16, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good system: for those wikis. The problem with featured article voting here is that no one votes. A complete overhaul in this case seems unnecessary. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 05:24, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of feeling neutral towards this. I understand where Auror is coming from, only a few users take part in the voting. But, I also think that perhaps a full revamp can maybe bring more members of the community to vote. Like I said, I'm neutral towards the idea. I would be up for it, but a small part of me is telling me it would be, like Auror said, unnecessary. Beds ^{(talk - blog)} 21:35, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify something. Changing the voting system isn't intended to increase voting, and I don't delude myself into thinking that changing the system will somehow increase the number of votes. The lack of involvement in voting for the feature is a totally separate issue. My reason for suggesting this change is to ensure that the articles we do pick are the highest quality that they can be, which is ensured best by weighing each article on its own merits. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:07, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

From what we've seen with The Sims 3, the release of The Sims 4 will probably bring more users to the wiki, so it wouldn't hurt to be prepared (even after all our rude jokes on how The Sims 4: Burglars or The Sims 4: Swimming Pools will be possible expansion packs). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:00, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, after a day of thinking, my mind has changed. I understand now that changing the voting system for featured article has nothing to do with the lack of votes. Therefore, I support the change. Beds ^{(talk - blog)} 21:35, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

I can see what Auror is saying, but from what I understand, are we trying to make the Featured Article voting system to be similar to RfA? Since you said we're not aiming for the number of votes, which in principle makes Featured Article a competition between which nominees gain the most votes, then is it more like a number of people agree / disagree whether a nominated article should be featured or not? In that way, the number of votes don't really matter anymore? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:06, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

Basically, yes, it would be like an RfA. It would be nowhere near as complicated, as we wouldn't create a new page for every nominated article, but the basic principle is the same. The successful choosing of an article as Featured Article would be determined by whether the article received more positive than negative votes, and would have nothing to do with whether another article received more positive votes than it, as they would not be compared to each other.

To take the RfA analogy further, consider this. Let's say that new administrative positions were chosen through "election." Applicants for the position would put their name on a list, and then the community at-large would go to a voting page and vote for the candidate(s) they felt should be admin. At the end of that voting period, the candidate with the most votes would be made a new administrator. Then, when the next administrator position would open up, the process would repeat again, with each candidate staying on the list and retaining any votes they had previously. The flaw in the system is that, over time, even unqualified candidates will manage to accumulate enough votes to win. That's essentially how we decide Featured Article now.

To clarify my position, I'm not opposed to revising the proposal. I just feel that the current system has a fatal flaw that needs to be corrected, and weighing each article independently is a method to accomplish it. It may not be the only method, but it seems to be a logical one and it has been done on other wikis. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 07:32, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I support the change for the system. The voting flaw has always been in my mind for a long time. It's basically what happens to all of the featured contents. It's like a nominated image is featured just because it's there. I agree that this system should be implemented in FA. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 08:09, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

I've had some time to think over the proposal and I've decided to support the changes for featured articles. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 19:32, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

This thread has long since dried up. Since response here seems to be favorable, I have enacted the changes to Featured Article. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:34, October 14, 2014 (UTC)