Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Quality Survey

I've moved this from The Wikipedia Quality Survey - it doesn't really belong in the main article namespace. It should probably be on meta really, but I'll let somebody else move it there if they want to. --Camembert


 * I agree. I moved it to Meta. Angela 18:10, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Why is the meta more suitable than the Wikipedia: space? I had thought the intent of the meta was to contain discussions that were relevant to all languages, while the Wikipedia: space is to contain discussions about the English wikipedia itself. I believe that Adam's points are relevant and deserving of discussion here, where they will be seen by the greatest possible number of Wikipedians. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 18:38, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea is that meta can hold things relevant to different languages - that is to say, it can have stuff on the French, on the English, on the Italian language versions and so on - but not everything on meta has to be relevant to all languages. Adam's survey is essentially a personal essay on the Wikipedia - exactly the sort of thing that meta was started for, I believe. The idea of the Wikipedia namespace (as least as I see it) is to hold generally agreed upon policy pages and utility pages, not just to hold general discussion and comment. --Camembert

Hmm, there sure are a lot of discussions here, though (most recently the discussions about reworking VfD, but also the rules for including biographies and much else), and relatively few Wikipedians follow the meta. And his material is not merely a personal essay since it contains well-researched facts. Did the fact that it does not paint the Wikipedia in a positive light influence your decision to move it? Louis Kyu Won Ryu 18:55, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No, that didn't influence me at all. The Wikipedia namespace is for things that actually help in editing Wikipedia (policy, help pages, rules etc). Adam's survey is something which may prompt discussion on the state of Wikipedia, or its aims, which is exactly what happens at Meta. The discussions about reworking VfD are no different from discussing reworking an article on its talk page. That isn't a discussion about the project on a wider level, it's about one page and as such should be attached directly to the page it concerns. Angela 19:23, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe this policy is wise, simply because of the paucity of discussion on the meta. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 19:31, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Just because there is a lack of discussion at Meta currently does not mean we should try and prevent that taking place there. It should be encouraged to avoid that problem. You don't solve it by trying to keep the discussion in the wrong place. Angela 19:48, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm game, but what can we do to drive more discussion to the meta? Many newer users may well be unaware of its existence.  Many old hands decline to participate because most of the discussion is not relevant to them.  Louis Kyu Won Ryu 20:18, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we discuss this on Meta? :)
 * Increasing awareness of Meta perhaps?
 * Angela