On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
All that's happened is that the professionally produced material had
some specific attention towards making it readable.
The Wikipedia AFAIK doesn't have any formal processes to check that,
so far as I know.
Is it
Hello Wikien-l,
Right now I am working on a robot that will process recently uploaded images
for problems, and respond to them. The amount of images that are being
uploaded and violating policy is currently (in my mind at least)
unacceptable. If we had a robot that could weed out obvious problem
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
All that's happened is that the professionally produced material had
some specific attention towards making it readable.
The Wikipedia AFAIK doesn't have any formal processes to check that,
so
I think the study does an excellent, if only implicit, job of picking up a
growing thread about Wikipedia quality, and one that I have often observed
in my own research of Wikipedia. Professionally-written articles (in this
case on cancer) are very clearly and explicitly written with the
On 2 June 2010 12:42, David Lindsey dvdln...@gmail.com wrote:
So, then, why are we trying? Why do the best Wikipedia articles look more
and more like (poorly done) journal literature reviews full of technical
terms and requiring substantial background knowledge to understand? I, for
one,
On 2 June 2010 14:10, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
We should undoubtedly stick to doing one thing well. And our thing
does appear to be collation. I'm happy for WP's cancer coverage to make
it into the same sentence as the NCI's. It argues that some very serious
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The best articles are the creation of algorithmic and
judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure.
How to measure good writing?
What do you mean by algorithmic?
And what do you feel needs changing
On 2 June 2010 18:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise
some topics are just never going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for FAs to be
On 2 June 2010 15:27, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The best articles are the creation of algorithmic and
judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure.
How to measure good writing?
What do
On 1 June 2010 23:06, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the fundamental issue of rapidly changing content; a
snapshot analysis will never give you a good grasp of an article (or
all of Wikipedia's) general reliability, because any article can be
perfectly accurate in one minute
Yes, Intro to X articles would be nice. There are a handful floating
around, such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, but often
attempts to create such articles are criticized as content forks, which is
unfortunate.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Gerard
On 2 June 2010 18:51, David Lindsey dvdln...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise
some topics are just never
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in
there.
I
On 06/02/2010 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise
some topics are just never going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for FAs to be about
On 2 June 2010 20:46, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote:
So /That's/ why we're so busy, and feel so alone sometimes!! :P
The busy policy talkpages, really (really) need regular input from the
old guard.
Watch[list]ful vigilance, is the still the best way to understand, and
influence,
15 matches
Mail list logo
