At some point, I'm hoping to organise a Wikia Spotlight for the Geometry Dash Wiki. The problem is that it is automatically inelligible for a spotlight due to it being unable to fulfil the best practice of "at least 200 content pages", as seen on the spotlight page. This I disagree with.
The fact these best practices exist is to filter spotlight requests of wikis which might not yet be suitable for widescale promotion, and to act as a guideline for wikis to use to improve in order to achieve that sought-after quality standard. Overall the best practices achieve that purpose and give well developed wikis the opportunity to reach out to a larger audience. However, the 200 article minimum is not a task that directly suggests positive development. Can adding pages be considered a task at all when it comes to already developed wikis? It should be clear to anyone that the more that exists on a wiki, the more work that needs to be done to maintain it. It should also be clear to experienced editors that not everything needs a page, and sometimes it is better that relevant information is all combined in one place than dividing it up and making it harder to navigate between. The Geometry Dash Wiki prides itself on minimising its article count. Why is this a good thing?
- Simple organisation
- Less maintenance
- Easier for readers to find pages
- Overall higher quality articles (more directed focus from editors)
It is obvious that having few articles suggests that a wiki is new, and can similarly suggest that a wiki is undeveloped. Why else would there be a 200 article minimum? But it does not take into account the conscious decision to minimise the article count for the above reasons. Where the subject of the wiki allows it, I believe it should be encouraged because the scale can very well tip both ways. It is possible that a wiki can grow to such a size of hundreds or thousands of articles without being efficiently managed. Only a few main articles receive constant attention, while others 'disappear' from any focus, attention, or even active knowledge of existing for newer editors who may never even come to find the neglected pages. By that point, organisation can become an impossibly large task, and certain articles may not be updated for months.
I certainly wouldn't deny large wikis the chance to receive a spotlight. They could do with some helping hands, and a spotlight promotes a time and effort-invested wiki for readers to see and editors to help out. Why then should small wikis that similarly have time and effort invested in them at a more concentrated level be denied the opportunity?
I reinforce that it is best practices, suggesting a preferable scenario, but not one that must strictly be followed. I propose that that the requirement of having over 200 content pages is changed to reflect the dynamic variability of different communities where it may be in their interest to keep the article count under 200 due to the nature of their wiki's subject and organisational practices, given that the wiki is of either a certain age or evident level of development. More deserving wikis will then have the opportunity to receive a spotlight.