Re: [Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

2013-05-29 Thread Jane Darnell 
I know you are all assuming while reading this thread that the
situation is much better in humanities subjects such as biographies of
17th-century artists, but strangely, you could say that it's about the
same, because the emphasis (through the centuries) there is often
based on opinions formed through study of the largest collectors with
published catalogs. I agree with Anders: "one of the most important
focuses on our editorial work is in getting a complete covering in as
many subjects as possible", so let's "develop (semi) automatic
generation of articles from official databases". If you deliver a
Wikipedia page to a google search that is as *specific* as possible,
then the people who have the grains of knowledge you need are more
likely to become editors and contribute to them.

2013/5/29, George Herbert :
> ...and engineering (theory ok to good, practical often very weak).
>
> And varies across fields radically...
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> wrote:
>
>> On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote:
>>
>>> I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
>>> "Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
>>> seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
>>> this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
>>> articles (at least in English)...
>>>
>>> "Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. Some
>>> entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
>>> shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run
>>> off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors
>>> but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
>>> distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
>>> URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
>>> not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."
>>>
>>> -- phoebe
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://shop.oreilly.com/**product/0636920026105.do
>>>
>>
>> Very accurate description of the state of articles at least in natural and
>> technical sciences in the English Wikipedia.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

2013-05-28 Thread George Herbert 
...and engineering (theory ok to good, practical often very weak).

And varies across fields radically...


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
>> I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
>> "Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
>> seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
>> this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
>> articles (at least in English)...
>>
>> "Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. Some
>> entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
>> shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run
>> off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors
>> but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
>> distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
>> URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
>> not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."
>>
>> -- phoebe
>>
>> 1. 
>> http://shop.oreilly.com/**product/0636920026105.do
>>
>
> Very accurate description of the state of articles at least in natural and
> technical sciences in the English Wikipedia.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

2013-05-28 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter 

On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote:

I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
"Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've 
ever
seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to 
me

this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
articles (at least in English)...

"Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. 
Some

entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others 
run
off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the 
contributors

but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."

-- phoebe

1. http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do


Very accurate description of the state of articles at least in natural 
and technical sciences in the English Wikipedia.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

2013-05-28 Thread Anders Wennersten 
I usually say Wikipedia consist of some hundred different encyclopedias 
on different topics.


And some of these are excellent and have full covering, like popes, 
birds, where wp  is better then all other encyclopedia in all aspects


Other subject area are more uneven both in covering and in content for 
each article, as this review give an example of for electronic


I am also convinced that one of the most important focuses on our 
editorial work is in getting a complete covering in as many subjects as 
possible. This is one of the reasons I do believe we need to develop 
(semi) automatic generation of articles from official databases (like 
the project to have articles on All lakes in x-country I have written 
of). Also that Wikidata have a key role in this new focus, enabling us 
to have a common repository for these common basic data


Anders


Fred Bauder skrev 2013-05-28 21:18:

I think that is a pretty good analysis of the entire project. It is
directly related to lack of editorial control and the impossibility of
being able to assign writers to problem areas.

Fred


I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
"Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
articles (at least in English)...

"Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent.
Some
entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run
off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors
but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."

-- phoebe

1. http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do


--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers

gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

2013-05-28 Thread Fred Bauder 
I think that is a pretty good analysis of the entire project. It is
directly related to lack of editorial control and the impossibility of
being able to assign writers to problem areas.

Fred

> I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
> "Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
> seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
> this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
> articles (at least in English)...
>
> "Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent.
> Some
> entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
> shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run
> off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors
> but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
> distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
> URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
> not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."
>
> -- phoebe
>
> 1. http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do
>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> 
> gmail.com *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

2013-05-28 Thread phoebe ayers 
I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
"Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
articles (at least in English)...

"Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. Some
entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run
off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors
but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."

-- phoebe

1. http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do


-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l