151:
request for comment will be held this
November to see how community answers those questions. First, the RFC will determine the future of the drives: Is community still interested in having backlog elimination drives inside the Good article Wikiproject? And if the answer is yes, How would we tweak the current backlog elimination drive system to make it compliant of what it is supposed to do and avoid all the issues that had split community before. Several proposals included in the RFC are the introduction of a qualifying process, The inclusion of daily review limits, an established disqualifying process and an additional proposal related to how often should drives be held. Of course, additional proposals might be added from fellow Wikipedians who would participate in the process.
113:
47:
150:
brought several queries to the GA community as a whole: Do we need backlog elimination drives? Can we fix the issues that had split community over the drive usage in the past? How do we deal with "rubber-stamp" reviews? Well, by the fact that it has been quite difficult to reach consensus to date, a
137:
The issue is that consensus apparently still supports the existence of the backlog elimination drives at GAN and recently, most of the GA community voted to keep making drives, although a proper consensus was not reached from such discussion. In addition, several proposals for alternate methods and
142:
proposed an amendment to the good article criteria that would eventually fix the need of drives by including two new quickfail criterias about prose quality and coverage issues. Community rejected the proposal arguing that it was way too narrowly designed to be included as quickfail criteria. One
120:
Backlog elimination drives have been a part of the
Knowledge (XXG) community as a whole since several years ago. Many WikiProjects use this method to bring their members on a collaborative effort to reduce the workload and, additionally, to share a very interesting and passionate time with fellow
143:
month prior, I proposed several changes for the drives structure that were considered too bureaucratic and with too many restrictions to have a positive impact. Despite of this, several recommendations were made and accepted by community, like the elimination of the barnstars, among others.
147:
133:
have been the subject of hard criticism: Several users have expressed their dissatisfaction with the quality of reviews and the useless backlog reduction, which immediately climbs to its original levels after the drive is finished.
105:
324:
319:
314:
309:
299:
25:
66:
54:
21:
263:
195:
17:
129:, have used this method to reduce a high accumulation of work. Apart from having several social and tactical benefits, drives inside the
138:
proposals for modifying the way drives are done had been received with overwhelming negative reaction. In
September 2012,
112:
237:
210:
169:
139:
257:
189:
122:
130:
126:
125:
hold drives to reduce their backlog each two months, and other WikiProjects like the
46:
96:
106:
Requests for comment: Future of GAN Backlog
Elimination Drives
45:
87:
A Matter of Time: The Future of
Backlog Elimination Drives
116:
June - July 2012 GAN backlog elimination drive chart
285:
79:
33:
170:"October/November Backlog Elimination Drive?"
8:
148:June-July 2012 GAN backlog elimination drive
262:: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
194:: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
37:
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Good articles
111:
55:The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
209:Fatuorum, Malleus (29 September 2012).
160:
255:
187:
7:
288:
146:In a summary of recent events, the
211:"An alternative to backlog drives"
60:Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012
32:
127:Articles for Creation WikiProject
67:For past newsletters click here
238:"A proposal for future drives"
1:
168:Dom497 (18 September 2012).
346:
320:Good Articles of the Month
40:
236:Hahc21 (1 August 2012).
244:. Wikimedia Foundation
217:. Wikimedia Foundation
176:. Wikimedia Foundation
117:
50:
115:
49:
131:Good article process
123:Guild of Copyeditors
85:Featured Editorial:
305:Featured editorial
118:
51:
333:
332:
284:
283:
280:
279:
276:
275:
121:Wikipedians. The
74:
73:
337:
286:
268:
267:
261:
253:
251:
249:
233:
227:
226:
224:
222:
206:
200:
199:
193:
185:
183:
181:
165:
140:Malleus Fatuorum
80:
42:
41:
38:
34:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
329:
272:
271:
254:
247:
245:
242:Knowledge (XXG)
235:
234:
230:
220:
218:
215:Knowledge (XXG)
208:
207:
203:
186:
179:
177:
174:Knowledge (XXG)
167:
166:
162:
90:
58:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
343:
341:
331:
330:
328:
327:
325:GA Task Forces
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
297:
294:The Newsletter
289:
282:
281:
278:
277:
274:
273:
270:
269:
228:
201:
159:
158:
157:
156:
110:
109:
104:Main article:
101:
100:
91:
83:
76:
75:
72:
71:
62:
61:
59:
52:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
295:
291:
290:
287:
265:
259:
243:
239:
232:
229:
216:
212:
205:
202:
197:
191:
175:
171:
164:
161:
154:
153:
152:
149:
144:
141:
135:
132:
128:
124:
114:
108:
107:
102:
99:
98:
93:
92:
89:
88:
82:
81:
78:
77:
70:
69:
68:
63:
57:
56:
48:
44:
43:
39:
36:
35:
27:
26:November 2012
23:
19:
310:Project News
304:
293:
292:
246:. Retrieved
241:
231:
219:. Retrieved
214:
204:
178:. Retrieved
173:
163:
145:
136:
119:
103:
94:
86:
84:
65:
64:
53:
315:Member News
300:Single-page
248:27 October
221:27 October
180:27 October
22:Newsletter
258:cite web
190:cite web
24: |
20: |
97:Hahc21
155:Notes
16:<
264:link
250:2012
223:2012
196:link
182:2012
95:by
260:}}
256:{{
240:.
213:.
192:}}
188:{{
172:.
266:)
252:.
225:.
198:)
184:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
