Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-05/Features and admins: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Thanks and reply to Ssilvers |
well done, signposters |
||
Line 3:
I like the new format very much, and I appreciate all your excellent hard work, but I'm not sure I like the "choice of the week" paragraphs. Keep It Simple. There is already too much competitiveness on Wikipedia, and we don't need subjective commentary on why X's FA is better than Y's. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for your kind words, Ssilvers. Concerning "subjective comment", I wanted to bring out the human element of these rich and competitive processes—the fact that real people have opinions there—as well as printing those interesting comments by nominators. The "Choices of the week" are clearly marked as opinions, and ''The Signpost'' has the journalistic capacity to give light to good-faith opinions. The message, I guess, is: hey, what do you, the reader, think? Go have a look at these excellent articles, lists, images, and see if you agree or disagree with those opinions. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to applaud the editors involved for the overhaul; introducing attribution, blurbs and critical commentary has made what used to be a dull, brief list into a must-read. Contrary to Ssilvers, I think an injection of a modicum of competitve spirit is a positive development, and the choices of the week will be understood by all to be somewhat subjective in any case. Commendations, all. [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><font face="New York">Skomorokh</font></span>]] 18:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
| |||