Hello Ditty,
It is difficult for me to understand your question if you are not more
specific of what you consider a "poorly written article". "Poorly"
can
refer her to many different things, like readability, grammar,
balance, statements supported by 'sources', good division of knowledge
over several articles etc.
I think that software tools can only give a hint, but the judgement
(how "good" is an article) can be done only by a human, on the basis
of concrete criteria what is meant to be "good", and for what target
group. I tend to say that some Wikipedia articles are "good" for
experts but at the same time unsuitable for the general public.
E.g., a software tool can count the words per sentence, but long
sentences are not necessarily good or bad by themselves.
Etc. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko
2014-10-25 1:47 GMT+02:00 Joe Corneli <holtzermann17(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Sat, Oct 25 2014, WereSpielChequers wrote:
And just to add to the complexity of James'
comments; there are some people
who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for a
general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved by
rewriting into more but shorter sentences,
How about an even simpler version of the problem: an encyclopedia
written by robots for robots. I speak, of course, of DBPedia. We could
equally ask, what makes for quality entries there?
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l