| Revision as of 04:55, 8 November 2007 editJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:00, 8 November 2007 edit undoJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| : Getting an article to FA status is not an individual's effort, but a collaborative one as is the editing of ''all'' articles in Misplaced Pages. You cannot say "I have three FAs", you can only say that you contributed alongside all other editors that edited that article to bring it to FA. You can add a star to your user page, if you want to, but that is it. I do not see that this page can get any traction as a proposal, and as an essay it does not read as one. Leave it as historical. ] <small>]</small> 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | : Getting an article to FA status is not an individual's effort, but a collaborative one as is the editing of ''all'' articles in Misplaced Pages. You cannot say "I have three FAs", you can only say that you contributed alongside all other editors that edited that article to bring it to FA. You can add a star to your user page, if you want to, but that is it. I do not see that this page can get any traction as a proposal, and as an essay it does not read as one. Leave it as historical. ] <small>]</small> 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| : As far as Misplaced Pages goes, the only thing you have to demonstrate your expertise, be that in editing, in policy, in community work, etc, is your public identity as defined by your contribution history. See ]. Note that being an expert does not automatically means anything in particular. You can be an expert and be a disruptive editor (I have seen those), and you can be an expert and be a model Wikipedian (I have seen these as well), so "expertise" in its own right is meaningless for this project, without other very necessary attributes for that expertise to be of use to the project ] <small>]</small> 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:00, 8 November 2007
I'm not sure if this is being aimed at being a guideline again, but {{essay}} is all it should strive for. If expert editors don't have any special powers, there doesn't need to be any formal process to recognize them. Furthermore, it is dubious as to whether they should have any special recognition beyond a list of their achievements. If an editor is expert because he or she has three FAs, they should say "I helped promote three FAs" if they want to, and leave it at that.--Father Goose 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Getting an article to FA status is not an individual's effort, but a collaborative one as is the editing of all articles in Misplaced Pages. You cannot say "I have three FAs", you can only say that you contributed alongside all other editors that edited that article to bring it to FA. You can add a star to your user page, if you want to, but that is it. I do not see that this page can get any traction as a proposal, and as an essay it does not read as one. Leave it as historical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as Misplaced Pages goes, the only thing you have to demonstrate your expertise, be that in editing, in policy, in community work, etc, is your public identity as defined by your contribution history. See WP:AKASHA. Note that being an expert does not automatically means anything in particular. You can be an expert and be a disruptive editor (I have seen those), and you can be an expert and be a model Wikipedian (I have seen these as well), so "expertise" in its own right is meaningless for this project, without other very necessary attributes for that expertise to be of use to the project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)