On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Dan Bolser <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Many people in my professional circle berate the quality of Wikipedia > (without any grounds, IMHO). It occurred to me recently that one > simple example of the quality of Wikipeida is the fact that you can > almost guarantee (IME) the correctness of the spelling in WP. > > Has anyone ever done a systematic analysis of the number of spelling > errors compared to 'other' sites? It seems that when reading read-only > corporate or academic websites, spelling mistakes are not infrequent. > > This would be a nice factoid to be able to throw out when the next > person says "well, I read it in WP so...". (Of course I'm assuming > spelling is a proxy for overall quality, which is clearly arguable, > but it's a good sign ;-). > > > Cheers, > Dan. > If you're interested in this topic I would *definitely* look at and talk to the "Guild of Copy Editors" on English Wikipedia.[1] This is a very effective WikiProject which has monthly backlog elimination drives.[2] -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
