Forum:Changing Article of the Month to Article of the Week
I know there has been discussion regarding altogether eliminating the Article of the Month.
However, I would propose that we change it to Article of the Week. In doing this we can:
- Encourage visitors to return more often as there is updated information on our front page.
- Bring exposure to many more excellent articles.
- Lessen the prestige (a concern mentioned as a reason to eliminate the AotM) of the article.
- Increase traffic and hits on our site as more people visit more pages.
The only downside I see is more work for someone (sorry) to do weekly edits rather than a monthly one. Comments? Thoughts? --Kashibak 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thats an awesome idea!!! I like that you mentioned the downside, but it doesnt seem a big one. This seems a good moderate solution to the problem of keeping/killing AotM. 1diehard1 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea. I do see another possible downside, which is that we'd go through our best articles four times as fast, and eventually end up with some lower-quality picks as we run out of really great ones that haven't been used already. But would that really be an issue? troacctid 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think we should keep it as AotM for now. I agree with Troacctid; we would run out of good articles. C Teng talk 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what if we recycled Articles of the Week once we run out of the higher quality topics? Surely there are 52 good articles existing on the Wiki right now-that's a year's cycle of high quality articles. And, worst case scenario-no additional "good ones" are added within a year, we repost the cycle again. With new players to Runescape, and new visitors to the site, for many people it would be like seeing the article for the first time. Again, just my two cents. --Kashibak 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute why not keep the Article of the Month as is but add an Article of the Week which is like the best of Articles, we could literally just cycle through previous Articles of the Month for Article of the Week. The upside here is minimal extra work, plus previously featured articles would get fresh exposure to keep them from getting out of date or less than AotM worthy (so to speak). Thoughts? Ideas? I'm ready to put it together if it meets consensus. Curiously, ~
kytti khat 03:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to add AOTW instead of replacing AOTM, and it will help make up for the fact were prob going to lose UOTM. I think were not going to get a lot of input or votes on this feature, especially after a couple months go by.. But by cycling past AOTMs that will eliminate most problems. Perhaps we could even include articles that almost made AOTM and only lost by a couple of votes (but not if they lost for being poorly written or something like that).--Degenret01 06:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally think that making the main page updated every week with a new article will be a change for the better. This will make it seem more like we are a growing and active community. It's horrable seeing the same thing EVERY week on the front page of the rs wiki --Rune ldr 88 07:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As some of the others have said, the more frequent change might lead to a dilution in the quality of the articles featured. Already there have been some AOTMs that in my view haven't been of the best quality (not the most recent ones, but a few months ago) and having to find a new high-quality article every week is going to reduce the number available. However, if the idea is reoriented into featuring a focus or collaboration article rather than one that is of already high quality, then it might serve some of the purposes of having an article of the week as well as potentially increasing the quality of the targeted articles to that of featured article status. If through such an effort (or other means) the number of available articles increases, then I would certainly be open to the idea of featuring a new article every one or two weeks rather than every month. Skill 07:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)