Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Analysis

Scaling
What would happen if in the fall semester of 2008, a dozen university professors did just what Jon Beasley-Murray did with Murder, Madness and Mayhem, and set their class a target of making a dozen articles into GAs and FAs?

I suspect a lot of things would go wrong. The main reason is that there would not be enough bandwidth among interested and supportive experienced Wikipedians to support the classes. In turn this would mean:
 * Slow turnaround at GA, where the oldest nominations can take over a month to get reviewed. An additional 144 GA nominations in one semester would make this much worse.
 * Lack of feedback to the students on core issues such as reliable sources, the need for citations, and no original research.
 * Little assistance on WP:MoS: not just esoterica, but basics such layout issues and lead guidelines, meaning likely failures at GAN.
 * Insufficient reviewers at WP:FAC to pay attention to these articles even if they were able to get that far; articles at FAC already occasionally are "not promoted" for lack of reviews, rather than because there are clear outstanding objections.

On the other hand, if all the projects could be as successful as MMM, would that be a good thing? The answer is clearly yes -- MMM has had ten (possibly soon to be eleven) of twelve articles promoted to GA, with a further two (perhaps soon to be three) promoted to FA, in the space of less than three months of work. If we had a dozen similarly successful projects, we'd have thirty-plus new FAs and over a hundred new GAs in less than three months. And what if we had a hundred such projects every semester? Goals such as a hundred thousand FAs would start to seem achievable.

Projects such as MMM represent a happy combination of skills and resources, both for educational purposes and for Wikipedia. Here are three areas where the breakdown of tasks between students and Wikipedians was both natural and synergistic:
 * Research and content. The students supply the content.  The professor can point them at sources, but the material is actually introduced by the students, who have access to the University libraries and sources such as JSTOR where they can research useful materials.
 * Verification. The professor is the arbiter of content breadth and accuracy.  The references will permit others to verify content, but the professor can do this during the project far more rapidly than anyone else.  This includes identifying omissions in breadth of coverage.
 * Style. Wikipedians who know the manual of style are absolutely necessary to the project.  The students in general will not know it, so this knowledge has to come from within Wikipedia.

Here are three more points about how the process was beneficial educationally. I'm making assertions here; I would like to hear Jbmurray's opinion on these points, of course, but here's how I see it:
 * Learning. I feel confident that the students ended up learning much more about their topics than they would have learned by writing a traditional graded paper.
 * Prose. The students were all capable of writing good English prose, but many did not initially; I was particularly interested to see a couple of blog comments to the effect that this project taught the students a tremendous amount about writing (that is, in addition to the topic).
 * Organization. The process of organizing material to flow well, with internal logic and a natural narrative for the reader, is a skill students acquire in writing papers.  I'd like to believe that the feedback process in working with some top-quality Wikipedian editors was beneficial in teaching this skill too.

I am sure that our post-mortem discussions will identify general and specific weaknesses in the process, and things that could be improved. Overall, though, I'd conclude that the project was extraordinarily successful both for Wikipedia and for the class, but that it is flatly impossible to scale the Wikipedia side of the project at the moment. Scaling the University side has its own problems -- if a professor who knew less about Wikipedia than Jbmurray took this on it might have gone quite badly, after all. However, that seems a much more easily solvable problem -- perhaps Jbmurray could become a consultant on how to run these projects!

The professors can't take on responsibility for all the aspects of the project that were, for MMM, largely dealt with by experienced Wikipedians. There would be far too much work for one professor to deal with; Jbmurray has already said a problem with MMM is that it was too labour-intensive, and he had, I would say immodestly, as good a support team as any such project will ever get. -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Things to remember: The FA-Team has more members now than it did at the beginning of the project. Also, jbmurray is becoming quite the FA-capable wikipedian, so a new project from him would probably need less help. I'll be interested to see how this all balances out. Wrad (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the success of MMM, aided by the FA-Team, scales: many of Wiki's most productive and experienced FA editors worked for several months to help generate (possibly) three FAs (maybe more down the road). Several of these editors stopped or slowed their regular FA production (I suspect that normal FAC throughput for April is racking up to a recent low), so I'm not sure there was a net gain in overall FAs (April is the lowest in a year, but for some weird reason, it also has been for three years).  Also, without the guidance of the FA-Team or a (now) experienced FA writer like Jbmurray, this wouldn't be an issue (*Insufficient reviewers at WP:FAC to pay attention to these articles even if they were able to get that far; articles at FAC already occasionally are "not promoted" for lack of reviews, rather than because there are clear outstanding objections.) because likely most of the articles generated by an educational project wouldn't make it past GA. I agree a Project under Jbmurray would likely yield several FAs, as he's now a well-versed FA writer.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is admittedly a bigger project than the FA-team originally intended to take on. However, some people managed to get some FAs through on outside projects (Awadewit!) I think it was worth it just knowing we could do it. Wrad (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Small note: The article I managed to get through FAC during the work-intensive part of this project was already substantially written. I would say that I replaced my regular FA work with this project. I have mixed feelings about that, mostly because I replaced my researching and writing time for Wikipedia with copy editing and teaching time, something I do a lot of already in my daily life. I seemed to be doing the same thing all day long: teaching people how to write. Although it is always rewarding when people are learning, I became exhausted. Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well ... it was a slow month, in terms of nominations submitted and in terms of where the best reviewers went (but, looking at old April stats, I can't say if that's just something that happens around spring break, maybe). My concern, as I expressed earlier elsewhere, is that y'all spent a lot of time grooming editors who won't stay on Wiki, and won't take advantage of the priviliege of having learned from Wiki's finest FA writers, when there are so many articles, Projects and editors out there that could benefit from the FA-team in a way that would translate, grow and scale.  They're begging for attention, they're banging on the doors of my talk page and beating me up when I archive their articles :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to take a project of this scale on again. This isn't exactly what the project was originally intended for. I'd like to in the future focus on single article, almost-but-not-quite-FA missions with people who are going to stick around in big numbers and become reviewers and producers. Wrad (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two questions here, I think. One is what the FA-Team wants to do, how it defines its role. The second is whether or not the FA-Team is indispensible to a university project such as MMM. The answer to the second question has to be no, surely. The obvious place for a discussion about and help for university projects has to be Wikiproject Classroom coordination. Unfortunately, that seems a fairly inactive project. I left notes there (as well as registering at School and university projects) and never got any feedback or response at all. I don't think the FA-Team should have to step in to fill that void. But the fact that there is a void is surely a problem. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The big shocking secret about Wikipedia is that there are gaping voids everywhere. Wikipedia is not a very active place in terms of actual active editors. My seat-of-the-pants estimate (sort of a modified catch-and-release population estimate) is probably not more than two thousand active editors. Today, there are exactly 990 active admins (see List of administrators). Wikipedia is not a big community at all. Yes, there are ten of thousands of registered users but the number of active users seems to be very small. The number of encyclopedia building editors is a fraction of active users. Most editors are maintenance people. The scary thing about the FA-Team members is that they are - more or less - all of the good FA editors and a good chunk of the GA editors too. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (in reply to Jbmurray): The gap in support that the FA team helped to fill is in part caused by the open nature of the project. Editors work on what they want to, which doesn't optimize the benefit to Wikipedia of their effort; it optimizes cost of labour (down to zero).  Community spirit, a sense of contribution to a greater enterprise, enjoyment of both teaching and learning, kudos and prestige -- these things can prompt cooperative ventures such as the FA team's interaction with MMM, but I don't believe they will support more than two or three such projects a semester. Mike Christie (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quickly, in response to both Wassup and Mike: Yes, of course, I realize both that there are voids everywhere and that that is inherent to the project. I suspect, indeed, that one of the major causes of frustration and burn-out among editors is the failure to recognize that inevitability: to see only the gaps (or the vandalism, or the arguments and wikidrama), to feel that they are unending, and so to throw in the towel.  Anyhow, I have more to say on this, but I'm running now to take someone to the airport, and once that's done my conference responsibilities are over (ah, bar the fact that now I have to help organize everything into a publication ASAP, but that's another thing...). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You ask how the FA team defines its role. Each of us would probably have a slightly different answer, but mine would be that I am interested in ways to help Wikipedia scale its production of quality material, with FA production as a convenient proxy for that quality.  I don't want to hand an FA-writing baton on to another editor; I want to figure out how to mass-produce batons.  I saw the FA team originally as a teaching project: convert existing editors into FA writers and we would gradually increase the rate of FA production.  What's exciting about the MMM project is that it cracks the door open to a world of resources that can be directed and planned, unlike internal Wikipedia resources, which are always voluntary labour.  I've no doubt Jbmurray will have lots to say about changes and improvements that would be needed if he were to undertake another such class, but I hope his conclusion will be that it is doable.  The educational side of this endeavour scales as soon as more professors decide to emulate Jbmurray; the Wikipedian side simply won't scale with it, and that's the problem I'd like to solve.


 * Here's an example of the sort of thing that would count as a solution to that problem, though I'm not sure this is a plausible approach. Suppose three professors decide to try a version of MMM this fall.  I'd suggest to them that before they take that decision, they write at least one FA, and preferably two, by themselves, and that they take those articles through GA and PR as well.  If the FA team were to support professors who declare an intention of running educational projects such as MMM, we'd be maximizing the benefit of our teaching ability.  I think more would be needed in the form of TA support, given that even with perfect knowledge of FA and GA requirements Jbmurray could not possibly have kept up with the copyediting needs of MMM.  Aside from the labour-intensive question, though, some form of "top-down" teaching seems necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here here! (Bangs fork on table.) Sounds like a plan.  Wikipedia practices (and sometimes even policy) have put some academics off of Wikipedia: the fact that they have to babysit their articles, the lack of a printed version (even if they choose to read online, academia is still very much biased in favor of things that eventually get printed), the fact that it can take massive amounts of time to get up to speed on all things wiki, the perceived randomness and sloppiness of sourcing, the fact that Wikipedia had not reached various tipping points.  All of that is changing (Version 1.0, Flagged revisions, fantastic work among FA and GA reviewers, more willingness of Wikipedians to reach out, and especially, the fact that there is now no better way for academics to get noticed by potential students and for students to get noticed by their peers than writing in Wikipedia.)  A quote usually attributed to Gandhi is: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  We're transitioning to stage 3, and we can expect to be treated much more seriously now by people who could help us write the encyclopedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia is so small, it wouldn't take that many academics to completely re-write the rules (policy, guidelines, ethos) of Wikipedia. This isn't news: Wikipedia's detractors have been announcing the project's demise since inception. When the dark side's hordes finally descend on Wikipedia, then the project as an encyclopedia will have wrapped. The dark side being spammers, corporate interests, special interest groups, and ego-boosters of all stripes. If academia descended en masse, this might be a good thing for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the small number of hobbyists who have kept Wikipedia going cannot scale up to meet them. The FA-Team should concentrate on those articles that amuse or interest individual team members. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A thousand academicians working hard for a year could do it, maybe, but the culture of WP is intensely resistant to this kind of manipulation, and there is no evidence that academicians are going to put in that kind of time trying to change Wikipedia, or care that much. They would most likely use it as a tool to get their stuff out in front of potential students and to score points against competitors.  Hopefully some will create articles for the same reason we do, because we love the goals and trust the project, but that's going to be a minority.  And, increasingly, department chairs are leaning on professors to pull in students any way they can (and this could include Wikipedia), because quality and quantity of students usually translate into money. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you over-estimate the size of the Wikipedia comminity by a magnitude! A hundred academicians could stage a Wikipedian coup d'etate. One of the most contentious policy changes in the last few months atracted a total of 455 interested editors: see Non-administrator rollback/Poll. During Dec 2007 Arbcom electios, one candidate received a total of 567 votes. I don't know of anything recently that has attracted the interest on the upper side of 500 editors. The community is small. Today, the number of active admins is 984. Altogether, I doubt the entire admin and regular active editor community exceeds 2, 000. A hundred professors leading a hundred classes to Wikipedia like the MMM project did would pwrn Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm only asking for us to keep our eyes open, and notice that Wikipedia has been distasteful to many academicians in a variety of ways, and that some of that is changing. How we want to react is above my pay grade. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Future academic projects and educational technology
(I've added a more or less arbitrary section break here...) A bit of perspective is required here. There ain't gonna be no academic coup d'état. Nor are a hundred professors about to try to take over Wikipedia. So whether that would be a good or a bad thing is something of a hypothetical question.

But there are people who are very interested in what's going on.


 * Jgroom was directly inspired to ask for the FA-Team's help on Long poem. He was turned away, mostly because the FA-Team was busy with MMM, and partly (but not solely) as a result that article remains somewhat in limbo.  I say only "partly" because there would seem to be issues on the academic end there: Jgroom is not the professor involved, and indeed the professor seems not to have taken out an account on Wikipedia at all.  Karanacs left a whole series of suggesgtions on the talk page, and I and others (Acer, Wassupwestcoast) tried offering some sample edits to the article itself.  Though I know Jgroom personally, I know nothing about the project beyond what we can also see here on Wikipedia, but it's clear that the academics who become involved in Wikipedia need to have a pretty clear idea of what they want to get out of it, and to have a certain degree of determination to do it.


 * Meanwhile, on Friday I'm giving an 90-minute-long presentation to a bunch of "instructional designers" from Alaska.  (Sadly, the presentation will be online, rather than them flying me up there :  Here, for what it's worth, is my brief:
 * The audience are instructional designers from around the state of Alaska, who are all employed in helping faculty use technology to meet their educational goals. In today's environment that means, as you know, a lot of helping people put wikis, weblogs, and various social applications to use.


 * "What I hope-- because your Murder, Madness and Mayhem project is such a good example-- is that you can go through that project: how you came up with it, how it works, show examples of the process. The Instructional Designers will want to know things like: why Wikipedia? What kind of technical support have you needed (if any)? What kind of support do you wish you had? Have there been technological problems? What has the use of Wikipedia given the project? Is it working? What has and hasn't worked and, if you have any ideas, why and why not?"


 * "I suspect that the designers will have used Wikipedia but have no idea how it actually works as far as contributing, collaborating, trying to achieve 'good' or 'featured' article status, etc."


 * "The reason I thought of you is that I want a perspective that is clearly not about technology, but about teaching, cultural engagement, collaboration... and the project itself is just, to use technical terms, freakin' cool."


 * "The bottom line is that I hope to shake the group up a little bit by giving a perspective that is a bit larger than they are used to and in some ways subversive regarding teaching, technology and culture. Feel free to rant and rave a bit about whatever moves you :)"
 * Now, I've got to figure out what to say. But NB that these are people who a) are paid to help out instructors in the use of technology, b) know very little about Wikipedia, but c) are very much keen to know more.  (Incidentally, Jgroom is also in that category.)  How can we achieve some kind of synergy between wikipedians such as the FA-Team, academics, and educational technologists?  I think it would definitely be worth bringing these latter into the equation, as a mediating force.  In any case, they're trying to get in on the act already!

Anyhow, I know we're pre-empting our post-mortem, and I need to run over to MVLL (I'm so happy with that redirect for some reason!), but I suddenly find myself having only until Friday to issue some kind of advice or even manifesto on the opportunities of Wikipedia. ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What?!? I thought Murder, Madness and Mayhem was all about dictatorships, and coup d'etats! You mean to study the dictator novel and yet have no secret passion to take control! BASTA! :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you call me a basta!! ;)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you're heading over to MVLl, because that list is still there, and there was a recent move in the wrong direction; I was afraid you were still gone. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jbmurray, by now you know so much about how Wikipedia works that I think of you as much as an FA team member as an externally-focused educator. (You should sign up!)  I think everyone here would be very interested in hearing what you end up telling this group.  For what it's worth, here are a couple of points you might consider, including some that haven't been mentioned in this thread already:
 * Working with Wikipedia can be surprisingly motivating for the students -- they may put in work (and learn material) to a far greater extent than they would just to get an A.
 * Don't take a course like this on unless you've tried to write an article on Wikipedia for yourself. If you want the students to take an article to GA, do that yourself first; similarly for FA.
 * No educator should assume that any significant number of Wikipedians will show up to help; they should make sure the course can stand on its own with the resources provided by the school. You can rely on Wikipedian processes such as GAN and FAC to operate as they usually do.  (And of course you can hope for Wikipedian participation.)
 * Clarify what we've been calling the form vs. content divide. The FA team has helped with content in many areas, and some of the students have demonstrated a very good command of form (even learning some of the MOS requirements) but by and large the division of labour was marked.
 * Encourage early and frequent attention to the articles; because of the review cycles a late rush of work has a harder time getting thorough reviews (and risks exhausting a limited set of reviewers).
 * In answer to "how can we achieve some kind of synergy between wikipedians such as the FA-Team, academics, and educational technologists?" I'd return to your early insight that Wikipedia editors are attracted to activity. The academics, aided by the educational technologists, can create and direct a flow of energetic activity into Wikipedia.  Sympathetic Wikipedians will show up to help.  As I said earlier, my concern is not that there won't be synergy, but that it can't scale.
 * There are always projects afoot on Wikipedia: WP:DINO is an example that has produced multiple FAs. Projects such as these exploit Wikipedia's talk spaces to organize and encourage the creation of particular articles.  The main reason academically inspired projects have the potential to be different is because of their ability to direct resources into the effort.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Scaling issue--too united?
I've got this nagging though in the back of my mind that the next project we do we shouldn't all work on at once. We should spread ourselves out more. This is probably obvious to some, but a lot of articles don't need more than two (maybe three) members of the team helping out. It will do more harm than good to have 20 editors all working on one article, like King Arthur or whatever. Maybe put an unofficial cap on the number of members helping per article? With this many good editors, we could have 4 to 5 one-article projects on the stove actively working toward FA and could get several per month without breaking too much of a sweat. It depends on the state of the article when we take it on and the help we get from the editors already working on it.

Prioritize, prioritize, prioritize...

Also, to help get consensus on things, could I ask that all proposals for new missions be brought up on the proposals page, and not here? It's so easy to lose track of things on this page. Wrad (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should put all proposals up for a "motivation" test. Drop a note on the article's talk page saying that we are thinking about helping out and see if anybody bites. If no one does, then it probably isn't worth our time. The article I think is most deserving of our attention right now, even more than King Arthur, is Force. That is an article that will have a very hard time getting to FA without our help, but has a group of very motivated editors and is at FAC, but is not doing too well there so far. Wrad (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My memory stinks: are you sure Force is at FAC? :-)  That's exactly the sort of article I hope you all will focus on: long-standing, motivated editors, almost-there articles that just need a push to get over the hump.  But I'm not sure about the idea of a note on the talk page:  Rudyard Kipling is likely an abandoned FA that could be restored.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, activity breeds activity, so if we started working on it, people would come, in theory. Hasn't always worked in my experience, though. Wrad (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Force failed FA. So sad. Such motivated editors... I'm sure we would be greatly appreciated there. Wrad (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of scalability, consider how little effort it would take for the talent on this page to bring Force over the hump, working with established editors there who know the standards, have the research, just need help pulling it together ? There are so many of those. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And we wouldn't need everyone. Just a few who were interested in helping with it. We'd definitely have room for Kipling. We just need to be really picky and we need to be willing to turn people down :( Wrad (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about if, instead of limiting editors, you limit time? Make it a test case. I'd wager if everyone descended on Force, it could be back at FAC in a week. Smaller projects. For that matter, Raul has a FAC up that's got two opposes (Parallel computing); how nice is that?  It needs come copyediting. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for joining the conversation so late, but I have to smile at the idea that Force could be back at FAC by next week; it reminds me sweetly of the passion put to use in my old griefs and my childhood's faith.   I'm willing to believe that a few editors could indeed turn it around in a week, but you all should not underestimate how much substantive work is left — it's not only dashed cosmetology. ;)  This was my first-ever oppose at an FAC.  I believe the chief editor appreciated the suggestions and critique and may be even now re-organizing the article.  If the article is indeed undergoing major surgery, then fewer editors might be better than many, and those few should be willing to read up on (the history of) physics.  As Scheherezade says, "a warning for those who allow themselves to be warned."  But we shouldn't be daunted; every day is St. Crispin's Day at Wikipedia. ;)  Willow (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? A week of (organized) mayhem after Llosa is done? Wrad (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I've already left a massive list of "things to do from a layperson's perspective" on the force talk page. Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the better. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could easily have several different types of missions concurrently - perhaps each month feature 1 article that is close to FAR, 1 that has recently failed FAC (or recently passed GA but has highly motivated editors behind it, and 1 article that's never been to FAC but has highly motivated editors behind it. With the number of people now signed up, we should be able to pick and choose which articles to get involved with.  I might not have time or interest in any of the articles for May, say, but may be interested in one of the ones for June. Karanacs (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

More on scaling and our potential
More reflections on this issue. I am delighted to see many more editors signing up on the FA-Team page. This could be the beginnings of a shift towards editors wanting to do everything they can to help an article reach FA status, rather than each presenting additional hurdles for an article to cross before it achieves the coveted bronze star (I stress that this is an epsilon shift, as all editors have the quality of the encyclopedia in mind, and all editors want featured articles to be the best). However, it is now completely natural to raise issues of scaling, both in terms of what needs to be done to make the remaining 99.9 percent of Wikipedia better, and in terms of making FA-Team activity scale.

As has been pointed out already, in Mission 1, it was actually only necessary to have two or three FA team members watching each article, and this is something which scales. I only watchlisted two articles long-term, and probably watchlisted five in total. But the project didn't simply work because the team had the articles covered. It worked because there was a collective sense that we were achieving something. When I heard of the great work going on at "El Senor Presidente" (even though I was not watchlisting it at the time), it encouraged me to raise ambitions about what could be achieved at the articles I was watchlisting. The collegial spirit of the FA-Team, the sense of a common purpose, is what has the potential to make it drive the creation of great articles (an amplification of the force driving Wikipedia, if you like). It is now a collection of amazing editors (yours truly excluded; I've never created an FA), but it is not just that. Amazing editors will do amazing things anyway, but the FA-Team has motivated these editors to do something really different. The contributions by editors such as Mfreud, Lincolnchan, ABarratt and so on, generated by this collaboration, are really amazing. This can scale to some extent, but scaling it is as much a matter of psychology and motivation (on all sides) as it is a matter of pragmatism. For this reason, I have been doing whatever I can do to create a feeling of FA-Team spirit. Even if we are working on many different things at any given moment, we are all working side-by-side. This is the spirit which I felt in Mission 1, and this is the spirit which I believe has the power to achieve many things. Geometry guy 01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that no one is questioning the huge benefits of the MMM mission. The question is "Now what?" Who do we want to be? Where do we want to apply ourselves? What are our priorities? Wrad (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that "the team" and the camraderie has been around for a long time, so, there's also a question of how this project distinguishes itself from WP:1FAPQ, which had very impressive FA numbers. If the goal here is to bring in new and more editors, Projects and articles, how can it best do that?  And do it to maximum benefit without taking too much FA production away from the 1FAPQ team?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What camaraderie? I didn't know there was camaraderie at 1FAPQ. I just see the list as a motivating force - I feel guilty when I don't achieve my promised goal. Here, I feel like there is a little community of people working towards generating more FAs and more FA-producing editors. We chat about how to do this. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it only me? :-)  I thought everyone tried to dig in to help each other there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I take your point Sandy: it is a cornerstone of the FA-Team approach that it engages new editors and encourages them to produce more good work. The success of (the still ongoing) Mission 1 from this perspective is not yet clear, but you can be sure that it will be discussed. However, at the very least, Mission 1 has worked from the point of view of team bonding and has created a sense of what the FA-Team's purpose is. Despite my long post above, I hope we can hold off a thorough post mortem at least until the remaining FAC is decided. Geometry guy 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent:) I'm still not really here, as I'm off to the conference dinner in two minutes, but hope to contribute tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)