This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus.jSarek 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
So, thanks to the GFDL, we're allowed to copy pages from Wikipedia. We did that on occasion in the first few months of the wiki, but don't do it much anymore. (This page lists many examples.) Now, usually we don't want to do this, because their pages generally aren't as good as ours. One major exception is articles for real-world individuals, where we are often lacking. So, when I saw Frank Klepacki on the main page of Wikipedia, I copied the article over and wookieefied it . I told a few people, and nobody objected.
Now, we alreadyagreedthat biographical articles can be featured. Frank Klepacki is probably good enough to be featured. But many people have said that articles that are mostly copied over from Wikipedia should not be featured. As jSarek says, "Featured Articles should reflect *our* hard work, not hard work that was done by others elsewhere and handily imported here." That makes a lot of sense. Now, the downside of that in my mind is that it prevents articles like Frank Klepacki from ever being featured. Re-creating or substantially modifying the article when it's already extremely good would just be a waste of time. And there's a fair chance that this will affect more notable people: Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel Jackson, and Keira Knightley are all Good Articles on Wikipedia. Ours are not. Now, most Star Wars actor articles over there are still terrible, but I doubt we'll get FA quality articles for a lot of people before Wikipedia does. If their articles are much better, I won't hesitate to integrate their content into ours.
So, the question is, should we make a rule saying unoriginal articles can't be featured, and how would we define such articles? -LtNOWIS 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think my opinion was pretty well encapsulated in my comments in the thread you linked above: "I think a FA policy against articles composed primarily of text from other sources might be in order" and "It should require substantial modification before we let it be a Featured Article, though." How do we determine whether an article is "composed primarily of text from other sources" or has undergone substantial modification? This may be something we have to leave up to the judgment of the Inqs and the voting public, though a good rule of thumb might be "at least half of the text of an article must be red when a comparison between the most recent version and the most recent edit containing borrowed text is made." Though this is far from perfect; certain fairly minor edits can sometimes confuse the software enough that it thinks major changes have been made. jSarek 00:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What of making them GA's then? I realize that also speaks of 'our work', but as long as we don't flaunt it, can it do any harm? DarthMRN 13:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The same standard should apply to GAs, only a bit looser. I like jSarek's rule of thumb, and I think we need to get something decided. I strongly support more real-world FAs. Gonk(Gonk!) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)