geni wrote: >> 2009/3/25 Durova <[email protected]>: >>> Getting back to the original post. >>> >>> How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average >>> British school textbook? >>> >>> -Durova >> >> Probably more comprehensive in that no one has yet worked out how to >> make a text book 30 foot thick. On the other hand in say the case of >> WW1 wikipedia tends to focus on the battles, the tactics, the weapons >> and to an extent the politics rather than what life was like for the >> average solider. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Life_in_the_trenches >> >> probably comes closest. >> >> Compare that with the length of: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Chamond_(tank)
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement. The former section could benefit from better sourcing, whereas the latter equipment is probably better documented. It comes down to interests of editors, since nobody is forced to edit topics they aren't interested in (although, if paid, I will happily do that). A comparison may be drawn between the frankly appallingly-written articles about some recent musical groups, as against conscientious and detailed articles about bands such as [[The Beatles]], [[The Who]] and [[Led Zeppelin]]. This doesn't immunise those articles against vandalism, fancruft and other nonsense, but at least it means there is a cadre of commited editors who will strive to maintain encyclopedic standards. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
