I don't see why it matters. As long as there's /some/ content, there's content that can be poor quality. If anything, a wiki with virtually no community is more susceptible to quality problems. If someone intentionally inserts misinformation or libel into an article on the English Wikipedia, it will likely be reverted in minutes, if not seconds. If someone does that on a small wiki with no active users, how long is it going to take to be removed? It might not show up in the top of Google search results, but its still a quality problem.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I wish for 80% of our projects to have the same problems as our bigger > projects. It would be cool that we could compare the quality issues of the > Xhosa Wikipedia or any of the bottom 80%. It takes content in order to talk > about quality. The content is not there and consequently quality is not an > issue. > Thanks, > GerardM > > 2008/11/30 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Actually, the quality is a serious problem of all projects including >> en.wp. I thought it is obvious for everybody, but if not, I can provide >> more detail. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >>> Please, speak for yourself :) I *do* care, and if there is an easy and >>> definite solution, I'd love to embrace it. I think we should care about >>> our >>> little siblings, about the smaller languages as we call them, and support >>> them if possible. I can only hope you were being extremely ironic :) >> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
