On 8 Nov 2005, at 18:39, kosebamse@gmx.net wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. One interesting point with my little test seems to be that the average quality of our content has not much improved since March (or since 2003, as far as I can remember).
What do you base this on?
A thought experiment: if we were the editorial committee of an encyclopedia to be written from scratch and were given Wikipedia's current content as a basis (but not the user base), what would we do? I guess we would put our energy into improving the material, i.e. rewriting/deleting/merging most of it. But we would not try to acquire more articles of that quality. (Ah wait, we ARE the editorial committee of an encyclopedia to be written from scratch...)
I dont know. Despite what other people seem to think there are huge areas that are missing. A lot of people find it easier to write with something to start from. I have written a few of articles from missing encyclopaedic articles (ones I knew something about) and other people have found them and improved them. So even having more stubs is useful.
Ok, just had a chance to go through your list, and yes the World of Warcraft article is fancruft. But it has been edited by 6 people. If people afre going to write this much it is hard to recommend merging.
William Roberts the first edit says "information is thin" but clearly notable. Someone will fix this one day, using a copy of "Not very eminent Victorians". The formatting will be ok then.
Reverse potential is a dab page but not in the usual style. I think thats ok.
Entertainer I agree is bogus. However it is because it is a remnant of life before categories. It and many of the linked lists need to be removed. Categories make this stuff redundant.
Gripper. Should die.
Imari porcelain is not incoherent, it makes a good effort at a difficult subject.
Diego Luna is what I would expect about a not very important actor. Reads like a copyvio actually.
Justinc