I found this read from the University of Illinois at Chicago Journal
interesting about the featured article process and how it does lack in
certain areas, including a need for more subject-matter experts to look
at these FAs:
Interesting; it says that of 22 articles reviewed, 12 were found to
not meet even Wikipedia's criteria for featured articles. The abstract
advises scholars not to naively believe [Wikipedia's] assertions of
quality.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting; it says that of 22 articles reviewed, 12 were found to
not meet even Wikipedia's criteria for featured articles. The abstract
advises scholars not to naively believe [Wikipedia's] assertions of
quality.
Sorry,
Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55%
success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate.
~A
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:33, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting; it says that of 22 articles
On 16 April 2010 16:38, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55%
success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate.
It's hard to tell from their scoring system which the three borderline
ones were, though.
Interestingly, the
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Interestingly, the seven clear failures exhibit a strong correlation
between quality and time - the points get lower as they get older. For
the other articles, there's little or no correlation between the time
since
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
I found three quotes quite interesting:
David Archer [...] remarked that he could tell
[the article on global warming] was not written
by professional climate scientists[.]
Among the
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 16 April 2010 16:38, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55%
success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate.
It's hard to tell from their scoring system which the three borderline
ones
But it would seem the technology is still some way off.
I don't know. I think I have found a good use for it.
http://cpedia.com/search?q=wikipedia+talk
This way, I can monitor all the talk pages I usually watch without having to go
to them individually!
-- Shirik
FWIW I noticed that there was actually a FA review recently where the
article actually meets a deletion criteria, but it was simply delisted
for insufficient references. The FA review criteria doesn't emphasise
checking things like that, and the kinds of people that do reviews
seem to care mainly
I find Cpedia rather...hilarious, for some reason. I don't see the
point to it, otherwise.
Emily
On Apr 15, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Del Buono, Matthew Paul wrote:
But it would seem the technology is still some way off.
I don't know. I think I have found a good use for it.
On 16 April 2010 20:25, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I find Cpedia rather...hilarious, for some reason. I don't see the
point to it, otherwise.
You'll love this blog entry:
http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors
He fails to realise the *only* people
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You'll love this blog entry:
http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors
He's not too far off the mark with some of his comments in that blog;
it's an unfortunate side effect of the style of
On 04/16/2010 03:09 PM, Nathan wrote:
http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors
He's not too far off the mark with some of his comments in that blog;
it's an unfortunate side effect of the style of communication the
Internet encourages that experimentation
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:29 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I think there are ways to signal that you are doing something as an
experiment and with the requisite humility. A good example is Google
Sets, which is part of Google Labs:
http://labs.google.com/sets
One of their
On 17 April 2010 01:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
That is a fair and thoughtful indictment of their approach. I have no
particular problem with the other comments in this thread either --
they weren't all substantial criticism, but that's fine as far as it
goes. A lot of other
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit to Citizendium:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics#Number_of_authors
Compare Conservapedia, which has 76 at the time I write this. The
difference is, the latter is pretty much a personal website run by a
gibbering fundie lunatic
According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day
during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the
meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the
project is at least no worse off this year than last. There seems to
be a winter dip in editing,
On 17 April 2010 03:57, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day
during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the
meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the
project is at least no worse off
19 matches
Mail list logo
