I meant that I question this:
For any popular TV show, Wikipedia has a main article and numerous subarticles on characters, episodes, and so on. For some subjects, Wikipedia is truly the best choice for information.
I don't agree that Wikipedia is the best choice for information based on my comments below; article quality is still generally substandard. Its brilliant considering we're not paying more than two-three employees to run the whole thing (or are we..?) and we have significant quantity, but we first need to make sure the content printed is suitable for the purpose. And what about unobvious vandalism? Just today I removed a "Dr. <something> has big glasses" from an article, it had been there for quite a while and I only noticed it because we had to visit the article for a project. if we have comments like that in articles, god knows what will happen.
On 9/13/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
I think we first need to finetune the quality of such articles. Sure, for every TV show, wikipedia has an article. But many (if not most) articles are stubs, they are subject to vandalism and lack references. First we need to bring them up to, say, good article status.
The infrastructure for the printed wikireaders described here is a separate issue from the article content - there's no reason to wait on it.
I think having a printed copy of an article to hand will show its flaws quite glaringly and lead to improved articles directly ;-) It will be particularly nice if this is per-category.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l