Pharos wrote:
My experience has been that, although certainly there is room for
expansion in scientific articles on specialty topics, Wikipedia
already has much better coverage of science than any print
encyclopedias, and most basic scientific subjects are treated fairly
completely.
In
Pharos wrote:
In contrast, Wikipedia's coverage of the humanities is often inferior
to the better print encyclopedias, and even with very basic subjects.
This is perhaps because the humanities lend themselves less to easy
summary, as there is usually a great variety of scholarly opinion on
If we were doing such a thing:
1. we wouldn't be paying anyone
2. we'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Nice idea, actually. Anyone feel they could put together a serious
programme to recruit academics to such a cause?
(changed subject as this is an interesting discussion)
I was
One of your points there was:
6. The current experience (or at least my current experience) is not
really encouraging. The real top researchers just plainly have no time
to edit articles, nor are they really interested. Those who come are
mostly interested in editing article about themselves
But I do not believe that experts should have any special powers in
the editing of articles.
Rather, I think they should be encouraged to act in a pure review
capacity, assessing the existing work of Wikipedians, and making
recommendations for improvement. This might also be partially
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com:
Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
hiring people to validate articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
secret by using
