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 going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for
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
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 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
Folks,
The LA Times health blog Booster Shots reports:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/06/three-cheers-for-wikipedias-cancer-info-well-two-and-a-half-cheers.html
As it turns out, information on Wikipedia can largely be trusted, at least
as it pertains to cancer. That should
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 and horribly misleading in another.
Any article about
Keith Old wrote:
The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncologyhttp://chicago2010.asco.org/:
Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth to the
professionally edited database, it was
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncologyhttp://chicago2010.asco.org/:
Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth
17 matches
Mail list logo