True, but very bad articles that requires to be reorginized and important sections rewritten, will be left there, until major changes makes those corrections, which will take time. I am involved in such an article, and it takes weeks for me to improve such articles, when the not so good version is left there. Some times, continual many little changes doesn't work, and more the article is bad less it works. So, the worst articles out there will be left in bad shape for long, because they are those that need the most changes and the need to get important sections rewritten. I wonder, what is best, to leave such articles, or delete them until improving them and making them encyclopedic. If we can not rely on the informations in an article, while should it be accessible like any others? It is true that there are tags warning people, but how would the common reader know, what part of the information is OK and what is bad?
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust
Wikipedia?" in which
various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in
their field of
knowledge:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the
articles reviewed,
particularly the article on [[haute couture]],
which Vogue's editor
rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the
[[Encylopedia]]
article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's
a start... it might
well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's
McHenry Index by
improving the quality of this article, and backing
up its statement
with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference
to Wikipedia own
fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an
interest in one of
the fields reviewed, and commented that they were
somewhat dubious
about the factual accuracy of one of the
criticisms made in the
article ;-)
One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability to self-correct. A simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in the Pepys article can be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly. What would be more interesting would be to have these same critics review the same articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place as a result of their criticism.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca