Charlotte Webb schreef:
On 12/4/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a positive or negative sign, but it struck me as an amusing experiment!
You loaded the article and found exactly the information you were looking for, without having to dig six months into the edit history (as I've needed to do, on certain occasions where a once-informative article had been chopped and screwed beyond recognition). How could yours be a negative sign?
Apparently, the Wikipedia article contained more information than he got from a superficial look at the original source. If I assume correctly that the programme in question does not have large amounts of secondary sources, that would mean that most of the extra content of our article comes from original research. That's bad.
Eugene
P.S. No, I don't agree with that, but I think it's a common view, for example among one side of the WebComics war.