I read "comprehensive" in this context to mean comprehensive coverage of topics in the enclyclopedia - i.e. lots of articles - rather than comprehensive coverage within a particular article.
----- "Dahsun" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Dahsun" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, 21 June, 2009 14:06:08 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, > Portugal > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41 FA and > comprehensiveness > > > Hi, picking up Charles's point "Another vertex is the FA people: in theory > they don't care about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to > the point where there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third > vertex is comprehensiveness". In my experience as an FA reviewer > comprehensiveness is one of the FA criteria, and I've seen FA candidates get > significantly more comprehensive at FAC. I've also seen problems when > reviewers have seen omissions that the nominator doesn't want in "their" > article. > > WerSpielChequers > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:18:27 +0100 > > From: Charles Matthews <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The London Review of Books on > > Wikipedia > > To: English Wikipedia <[email protected]> > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; > > format=flowed > > > > Cormac Lawler wrote: > > > > > > I think what's interesting here is asking: how does > > Wikipedia harness > > > the energy of the public (for want of a better word) > > in a way that can > > > be more productive, useful (or at least less > > brain-sporkingly > > > nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section > > does? > > Of course just about any model is superior to encouraging > > low-level > > ranting. The "open comments" are generally less > > interesting than a > > letters page because there may be no filter. Or, as in the > > case of the > > Sunday Times it seems, there is moderation but only to save > > > > embarrassment to the paper. WP's basic idea of "merciless > > editing" is > > one way, and it gets to one major issue at the root: > > touchtyping skills > > don't make you a great writer, while basic copyediting > > skills can > > transform rubbish prose. > > > > > > But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's > > book, the > > > reviewer singled out the collaboratively-written > > afterword as better > > > written than Andrew's book, which he found "full of > > interest but > > > rather indulgent, containing too much incidental > > detail about people > > > Lih wants to please." I can't imagine Andrew is fully > > happy about that > > > (!) - but it's an interesting take. > > Time for one of my current pet theories: the "triangle of > > takes" on > > upgrading WP. Andrew Lih represents one vertex, as you can > > see in his > > recent NYT interview, where he cites popular culture and > > politics as the > > drivers in WP. Basically this is about being very current > > in our > > coverage. Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they > > don't care > > about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to > > the point where > > there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third > > vertex is > > comprehensiveness. Lih's book - well, I haven't read it yet > > (sorry, > > Andrew), but you can see it fitting roughly in with where I > > locate him > > on the triangle. The "incidental detail" is often how > > popular culture or > > political journalism is (deliberately) written, rather than > > trying for > > in-depth or serious. > > > > Anyway, I commend the triangle: currency, > > comprehensiveness, quality. > > Most people around the wiki can probably plot themselves > > somewhere in > > the interior, and this gives a kind of map of prorities. > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41 > > **************************************** > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
