323:
in our subject area. Military history is amenable to eventualism. For the moment at least, historians write books, which are not subject to loss through technological changes. There is a general demand for the books. Most bookstores have a
Military History section. It also means that there is a thriving trade in second hand military books, whereas the work I did for the Paralympics required the mobilisation of a workforce and the attendance at events to grab the information while it was available. Although frowned on by academia, military history has a loyal following, and the project is lucky to have a solid core of highly knowledgeable editors. It is pleasing that the Military History Project has carved out a reputation for high quality workmanship. A key part of this has been our A-class review process. It has standards comparable to FAC, but more structured and without its limitations. Like FAC, its standards have risen over time. I tried to simplify its administration by automating it with a Bot.
783:, for example, seems to have stalled out a few years ago (at the start of the "decline") pretty much exactly when it would be expected to- when the battleship articles that people were most interested in writing got pushed to GA+, and all that was left was the ones that felt more like work. This doesn't mean that the "decline" isn't a problem- lack of low-hanging fruit makes it difficult to replace old editors with inexperienced editors that need something to work on as they build skill- but it does frame it as more of a natural life-cycle shift than a death knell for the project. --
507:
with the never ending amount of popular culture related appearances which people document in trivial ways in the articles. While there can be no denying that military equipment is a popular culture area, most of what we see is material that is not sourced, poorly, sourced, and generally not really needed in the articles in question. Wrangling all this into corals so it can be handled correctly can be challenging at times, especially when dealing with new or unregistered users who feel that the material should be present at any cost.
110:
570:
reached a point where
Knowledge (XXG) is going to have to evolve if it is going to survive. New members are urgently needed, but our overall sense of community has declined in the last five or so years such that these days it seems that the site survives less on contributors and more on luck. We need to reignite that spark from the old days when this was still an exciting and cool place to be, otherwise the constant burnout is going to be the death of all of us.
130:
613:
90:
558:
broader processes of the project will also be a challenge. We need to ensure that our processes are simple, but also effective in producing quality content, while providing an editing environment that encourages people to participate and enables them to feel part of a community. Whether we can achieve this remains to be seen, but it will be a defining part of our
Knowledge (XXG) journey as a project.
251:
related to nuclear weapons. Working on a series of articles in a particular topic area allows you to re-use the sources that you have assembled. I have brought over 60 military articles to FAC. For every major, FAC-worthy article that I create, I also create a couple of lesser, GA-quality articles. These are often new articles, but I have also taken seven articles that I created all the way to FAC.
210:
120:
36:
779:
years". One of the conclusions we're tentatively reaching is that this feeling of malaise may be a result of all the low-hanging fruit being written, with what's left being on average more difficult to write/research; this problem would be more prominent at MILHIST than VG as VG gets new, exciting and easily-sourcable subject released every year, while MILHIST doesn't.
140:
235:
day and would not consider myself anything but an amateur at best). However, working within MILHIST has provided me with the opportunity to expand my knowledge, and as such I have tried to branch out a little to other areas, including working on articles relating to New
Zealand infantry units, and battles of the Pacific War not involving Australia. My work at
100:
819:
work on. Unfortunately the idea has persisted for far too long that content addition is mainly about adding new articles. But C and start class won't and shouldn't be deleted, & many are not bad at all. But we already know that even those that are pretty terrible will just sit there neglected ad infinitum, as many have now done for over 10 years.
150:
833:
I've been decrying "number of articles" as the unit of analysis for some time. Editor passion certainly runs along the lines where a desire to establish a narrative connects to needed content. At some point, the low-hanging fruit of commonly desired narratives have been fulfilled and what remains are
404:
We have a particular contributor base that works with our particular model for our articles and reviews and such, so copying what we have won't automatically work for other projects. That being said, solving the larger
Knowledge (XXG) related issues would (in theory) help all the projects by bringing
801:
There's no shortage of MILHIST writing assignments. The project is still struggling to get 15 per cent of the articles up to B class or better. Only 1,609 are FA and A class; another 16,994 are GA and B. A staggering 98,686 are C and start class. The manpower to tackle this problem no longer exists,
778:
about this interview, especially the repeated assertion that the MILHIST project and wikipedia overall is in decline. I pulled up assessment data (as I had it handy) for the last 12 years for WP:VG, and while 2017 wasn't our best year ever the trend overall doesn't match "in decline for the last few
557:
The project's ongoing success will be tested in the coming years. To remain successful, we need to ensure that we welcome new editors while managing to keep our olds and bolds. New isn't always better, but the old ways also aren't always the best way either. Encouraging people to get involved in the
506:
We do keep an eye on the articles for this, and in fairness we've had trouble in the past with some black project related material for which sourcing is generally fringe at best. A conscious effort to keep the pages clear of conspiracy material helps, but I personally feel that the larger problem is
250:
I have been with the
Military History Project since December 2006. Originally I focused on articles related to technology and logistics in the Australian Army in the First and Second World Wars, the areas I wrote my master's and doctoral theses on. Since 2011, I have worked on improving the articles
462:
Echoing Rupert, even though A-Class Review doesn't attract quite the same interest it once did, it's still going quite strong, and I think serves as a model for any project seeking to create a "pre-FAC" community assessment process. Rupert was also too modest to mention his own contributions to the
336:
To be brutally honest, we've lost our thrusters and have been suffering a slow decline over the last few years due to an absence of new contributors to
Knowledge (XXG) in general. That combined with our ever changing standards is making it harder for us to maintain the articles and reviews and such
322:
The
Military History Project has not been immune to the general inexorable decline process, and to survive in the long run Knowledge (XXG) needs to ditch some of the dogma. We have the advantage that the subject is highly accessible to the general public. We have some advantages over other projects
234:
I have been involved with MILHIST for over nine years. In terms of article writing, I tend to focus on
Australian infantry units and Second World War battles involving Australia as this is the area of military history I am most comfortable with (although even in this field I am still learning every
894:
wholeheartedly. This is why I focus on good topics; I can reuse the same sources across multiple articles. For the 2016 Guamanian
Olympians, I slowly wrote the others articles while I worked on a specific one, giving it a good base for expansion when I got to it. Even now, working on articles like
866:
We have side by side a tribune saying "this outlook borders on historical revisionism and whitewashing: accomplishments are celebrated while crimes and ideological alignment with the regime are minimised, in contrast to the contemporary historiography of the war" and a WikiProject report that says
818:
Indeed - in most content areas the "low-hanging fruit" is no longer subjects with no article, but subjects with rather poor articles but high views. These can be tackled by inexperienced editors with the right attitude & access to good sources, and indeed are the best thing for them to them to
529:
that anti-intellectualism was a consequences of the democratisation of knowledge. There is a trend of disparaging experts, who have a record of debunking cherished beliefs. Many people think that Knowledge (XXG) means that we don't need experts anymore; they seem unaware that those experts are the
264:
I've been a member of both the Military history Wikiproject and Knowledge (XXG) for over ten years, and in that time I've seen or done almost everything that can be seen or done in the Military history Project. I started off just editing articles, then worked on moving articles up to GA, A, and FA
390:
As is the case everywhere on Knowledge (XXG), a small group of editors create 90 per cent of the content. Ironically, military history is a peaceful, constructive and collaborative community. But the key is always enthusiasm and a desire to spread knowledge in pursuit of our educational mission.
569:
For some years now we've escaped the downward spiral of Knowledge (XXG)'s dry rot but it's finally starting to catch up with us, and that should concern everyone here. If a large project as successful as ours has been is starting to feel the grasp of lady death's cold fingers then it means we've
357:
newsletter, we've never missed an issue. In terms of what sets the project apart, not being an active member of any similar projects it's perhaps difficult to say but I do think there is a good sense of community and -- generally -- a lack of conflict (perhaps ironically in light of our subject
285:
unit articles. I find myself better suited to articles with a narrow but deep focus, such as bios and unit histories -- broader topics like battles and wars I tend to leave to others. I like to take the articles I edit through as many review processes as I think they can stand, from our B-Class
534:
sounds like a reference to the tinfoil hat brigade, but as the term is defined on Knowledge (XXG), it also covers many popular and widely-held ideas and beliefs. Biases that affect Military History often arise from the very heart of English-speaking culture. Our best defence is each other; the
378:
Each project has its own strengths and weaknesses, and its own challenges and opportunities. As does MILHIST. We do some things well, while other areas could be improved. Such is life. Ultimately, the key to success for any project will be to build a core of editors keen to work together for a
203:
with different criteria ranging from the all-purpose WikiChevrons to rewards for participating in drives and improving special topics to medals for improving articles up to A-class status to the coveted "Military Historian of the Year" award. We asked several Milhist project members for their
310:
To be honest, I'd argue that MILHIST is also currently in a process of decline and that this mirrors (broadly) the general trend on Knowledge (XXG). I would argue, though, that this is normal for any organisation following a period of rapid expansion, as it finds its equilibrium.
337:
at currently acceptable levels. For the time being this is somewhat offset by our core of hardcore contributors, but there's only so much that they can do to keep us in orbit. If Knowledge (XXG) as a whole could rebound somewhat, this problem in general may resolve itself -
352:
I tend to agree with Rupert, Hawkeye and Tom that MilHist has also slowed down, although I'd still count it as thriving in comparison to some areas of WP. Just to take an example close to my heart, while we've not always run closely to our planned schedule with the
280:
I've been involved with MilHist almost as long as I've been on WP, which is over a decade now. I primarily write biographies of Australian military aviators, but have branched out to do some Australian Army and Navy personnel as well; I also write a lot of
834:
the undesirable clean-up tasks requiring hard work. I have to believe that it was easier to host more editors when it was the wild west here and there were fewer rules and less stringent sourcing requirements for those editors with unspent passion
467:, often helping with project news, contest results and so on -- this sort of effort has meant that Nick and I really do just need to edit much of the time, most of the original writing being done by other project members, as one would hope.
239:(as well as GAN and FAC), though, has allowed me to get involved in a broader range of topics also. I have really enjoyed this aspect of the project, as well as the opportunity to interact with many different people from all walks of life.
899:, I could cite or add content to Edwards Air Force Base, his father's article, Gemini 4, Buzz Aldrin, and I am sure many more as I work my way through the book, making it easier to promote all of those articles later.
748:
269:, where I've done a number of op-ed pieces commemorating the 100-year anniversary of World War I. In addition, I'm still something of a think tank, offering my suggestions and advice on milhist matters.
687:
600:
591:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
712:
682:
717:
637:
707:
677:
662:
647:
76:
652:
630:
657:
642:
624:
55:
44:
722:
667:
702:
672:
286:
assessment to GAN, A-Class Review, and FAC; in turn I review others' articles. I've been a coordinator of the project for most of the past several years, and also edit the
697:
200:
93:
977:
430:
21:
953:
230:
How long have you been a member of WikiProject Military History? Do you prefer working on articles related to particular subjects, people, or time periods?
948:
943:
775:
174:
938:
216:
526:
802:
so they will probably wind up being deleted. But what is "low hanging fruit"? An article for which sources exist to lift it to A class?
306:
What sets this Wikiproject, which has remained relatively active, apart from most other projects, which have fallen into slow decline?
435:, is also an aspect that I think deserves highlighting. This is largely the result of a small group including its dedicated editors,
196:
933:
612:
49:
35:
17:
522:. This mostly affects the infoboxes and the lead, as Randy doesn't have the wherewithal to read the articles. As early as 1964,
535:
collective will of the project that can marshal numbers needed to fight off challenges from individuals or even small groups.
914:
876:
853:
828:
813:
796:
172:
This week, we're checking out ways to motivate editors and recognize valuable contributions by focusing on the success of
896:
519:
892:
Working on a series of articles in a particular topic area allows you to re-use the sources that you have assembled.
563:
500:
456:
384:
379:
common(ish) purpose. Achieving this, and maintaining it, is difficult, but there are certainly many ways to do so.
316:
282:
244:
265:
class, then switched to article reviews, and now I'm working largely within the realm of our in house newsletter
199:
that can be awarded to helpful contributors, WikiProject Military History has gone a step further by creating a
959:
846:
838:
discipline and education. I prefer to see Knowledge (XXG)'s "decline" as a lack of the right sort of editors.
771:
421:
Is there any work that the project has done you would like to highlight as being particularly successful?
559:
496:
452:
380:
312:
240:
358:
interest). As far as processes go, A-Class Review is still a very important and distinguishing aspect.
405:
in fresh blood, fresh perspective, and fresh ideas to projects that we can all agree we sorely need.
840:
575:
512:
410:
346:
274:
531:
492:
808:
541:
523:
472:
397:
363:
329:
295:
257:
426:
236:
103:
824:
744:
123:
178:. Anyone unfamiliar with WikiProject Military History is encouraged to start at the report's
907:
780:
133:
872:
790:
153:
571:
508:
448:
406:
342:
270:
488:
483:
Are there any methods you use to prevent biases and conspiracy theories from existing?
971:
885:
803:
536:
468:
444:
440:
392:
359:
324:
291:
252:
163:
820:
143:
891:
902:
436:
209:
113:
868:
785:
429:
process has been quite successful over the years. The project's newsletter,
867:
something like "business as usual". More cross-comments would be welcome !
30:
WikiProject Military History: Combat, weapons, monuments and personalities.
374:
Is the success transferable to other projects, by changing how they work?
530:
very people who made the information available on Knowledge (XXG).
54:
611:
208:
34:
341:
we could convince enough people to give the site a chance.
760:
753:
733:
758:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
8:
978:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2018-04
443:, and some regular contributors such as
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
761:
737:
70:
217:Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood
29:
7:
195:. While many WikiProjects provide a
487:I think site wide policies such as
518:There are constant conflicts with
56:
28:
743:These comments are automatically
890:A little late, but I agree with
553:Anything else you'd like to add?
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
928:: doing it for free since 2005.
754:add the page to your watchlist
1:
175:WikiProject Military History
71:WikiProject Military History
994:
877:14:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
854:13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
829:12:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
814:03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
797:17:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
290:newsletter with Nick-D.
915:07:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
751:. To follow comments,
616:
604:"WikiProject report" →
237:MILHIST A-class review
213:
182:about the project and
39:
615:
212:
38:
747:from this article's
596:"WikiProject report"
738:Discuss this story
693:WikiProject report
688:Arbitration report
617:
524:Richard Hofstadter
214:
68:WikiProject report
45:← Back to Contents
40:
762:purging the cache
713:Technology report
683:Discussion report
201:variety of awards
50:View Latest Issue
985:
962:
912:
910:
905:
893:
889:
852:
849:
843:
811:
806:
793:
788:
765:
763:
757:
736:
718:Featured content
638:From the editors
635:
627:
620:
603:
595:
560:AustralianRupert
544:
539:
497:AustralianRupert
453:AustralianRupert
400:
395:
381:AustralianRupert
332:
327:
313:AustralianRupert
260:
255:
241:AustralianRupert
166:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
993:
992:
988:
987:
986:
984:
983:
982:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
958:
956:
951:
946:
941:
936:
929:
921:
920:
908:
903:
901:
897:Michael Collins
883:
847:
841:
839:
809:
804:
791:
786:
774:, we're having
767:
759:
752:
741:
740:
734:+ Add a comment
732:
728:
727:
726:
628:
623:
621:
618:
607:
606:
601:
598:
593:
587:
586:
542:
537:
398:
393:
330:
325:
258:
253:
225:
220:
219:
206:
168:
167:
161:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
991:
989:
981:
980:
970:
969:
957:
952:
947:
942:
937:
932:
931:
930:
923:
922:
919:
918:
917:
880:
879:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
842:Chris Troutman
772:WP:Video Games
742:
739:
731:
730:
729:
725:
720:
715:
710:
708:Traffic report
705:
700:
695:
690:
685:
680:
678:Community view
675:
670:
665:
663:Special report
660:
655:
650:
648:News and notes
645:
640:
634:
622:
610:
609:
608:
599:
590:
589:
588:
584:
582:
581:
580:
579:
567:
549:
548:
547:
546:
520:Randy in Boise
516:
504:
479:
478:
477:
476:
460:
427:A-class review
417:
416:
415:
414:
402:
388:
370:
369:
368:
367:
350:
334:
320:
302:
301:
300:
299:
278:
262:
248:
226:
223:
221:
215:
207:
170:
169:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
990:
979:
976:
975:
973:
961:
955:
950:
945:
940:
935:
927:
916:
913:
911:
906:
898:
887:
882:
881:
878:
874:
870:
865:
864:
855:
850:
844:
837:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
817:
816:
815:
812:
807:
800:
799:
798:
795:
794:
789:
782:
777:
773:
769:
768:
764:
755:
750:
746:
735:
724:
721:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
694:
691:
689:
686:
684:
681:
679:
676:
674:
671:
669:
666:
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
651:
649:
646:
644:
641:
639:
636:
632:
626:
625:26 April 2018
619:In this issue
614:
605:
597:
585:
577:
573:
568:
565:
561:
556:
555:
554:
551:
550:
545:
540:
533:
528:
525:
521:
517:
514:
510:
505:
502:
498:
495:say it best.
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
481:
480:
474:
470:
466:
461:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
428:
424:
423:
422:
419:
418:
412:
408:
403:
401:
396:
389:
386:
382:
377:
376:
375:
372:
371:
365:
361:
356:
351:
348:
344:
340:
335:
333:
328:
321:
318:
314:
309:
308:
307:
304:
303:
297:
293:
289:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
263:
261:
256:
249:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
231:
228:
227:
224:
218:
211:
205:
202:
198:
194:
191:
188:
185:
181:
180:first article
177:
176:
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
57:26 April 2018
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
925:
900:
835:
784:
776:a discussion
692:
653:In the media
631:all comments
583:
552:
482:
464:
431:
425:I think our
420:
373:
354:
338:
305:
287:
266:
229:
222:
173:
171:
94:PDF download
960:Suggestions
745:transcluded
144:X (Twitter)
204:thoughts.
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2018-04-26
954:Subscribe
810:(discuss)
749:talk page
572:TomStar81
543:(discuss)
532:WP:FRINGE
509:TomStar81
493:WP:FRINGE
449:TomStar81
432:The Bugle
407:TomStar81
399:(discuss)
343:TomStar81
331:(discuss)
271:TomStar81
267:The Bugle
259:(discuss)
972:Category
949:Newsroom
944:Archives
926:Signpost
886:Hawkeye7
805:Hawkeye7
770:Over at
658:In focus
643:Signpost
594:Previous
538:Hawkeye7
469:Ian Rose
445:Hawkeye7
441:Ian Rose
394:Hawkeye7
360:Ian Rose
326:Hawkeye7
292:Ian Rose
254:Hawkeye7
197:barnstar
164:Eddie891
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
821:Johnbod
723:Gallery
668:Opinion
193:forward
909:(Talk)
904:Kees08
781:WP:OMT
703:Humour
527:warned
437:Nick-D
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
939:About
869:Pldx1
673:Op-ed
465:Bugle
355:Bugle
288:Bugle
16:<
934:Home
924:The
873:talk
848:talk
836:sans
825:talk
787:Pres
698:Blog
602:Next
576:Talk
564:talk
513:Talk
501:talk
491:and
489:WP:V
473:talk
457:talk
447:and
439:and
411:Talk
385:talk
364:talk
347:Talk
317:talk
296:talk
283:RAAF
275:Talk
245:talk
187:your
184:make
190:way
162:By
79:—
974::
875:)
827:)
592:←
451:.
339:if
888::
884:@
871:(
851:)
845:(
823:(
792:N
766:.
756:.
633:)
629:(
578:)
574:(
566:)
562:(
515:)
511:(
503:)
499:(
475:)
471:(
459:)
455:(
413:)
409:(
387:)
383:(
366:)
362:(
349:)
345:(
319:)
315:(
298:)
294:(
277:)
273:(
247:)
243:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
