Carnildo wrote:
Not surprisingly, the average coverage of subjects is fairly poor. 64% of articles were rated "low" or "stub", indicating they did not have even a basic chronology of the subject's life, and 29% were rated "medium", indicating a basic chronology but nothing more. 6% were rated "good", with a relatively complete chronology, and one article was approaching "featured" quality. While doing the survey, one of the biographies was deleted for lack of notability, one as being unverifiable, and two were listed as copyvios.
Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of people don't get a good bio in Wikipedia until they die and there are nicely-researched obituaries to use as sources.
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote
Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of people don't get a good bio in
Wikipedia until they die and there are nicely-researched obituaries to use as sources.
Yes, a high price to pay for getting your educational record straight.
It's not so bad though. Many fairly stubby articles are there as placeholders _in case_ someone gets into the news. We have a stub on a scientist, who gets a Nobel out of the blue (can be for work done 15-20 years ago, quite easily). People look up the article as soon as the news hits the wire services, and the article burgeons in real time as academics look in to see what's here and sort it out. No article, they may not start one. Also, say it's a Swiss researcher, and that the German-language article is better than the English article. We do at least have that interwiki possibility, then.
So let's not forget that WP has always had the low-grade articles, has thrived, and there is some connection.
Charles
On 8 Feb 2006, at 12:29, David Gerard wrote:
Carnildo wrote:
Not surprisingly, the average coverage of subjects is fairly poor. 64% of articles were rated "low" or "stub", indicating they did not have even a basic chronology of the subject's life, and 29% were rated "medium", indicating a basic chronology but nothing more. 6% were rated "good", with a relatively complete chronology, and one article was approaching "featured" quality. While doing the survey, one of the biographies was deleted for lack of notability, one as being unverifiable, and two were listed as copyvios.
Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of people don't get a good bio in Wikipedia until they die and there are nicely-researched obituaries to use as sources.
I think that is partly because there are very few online biographies, and many books about cultural things mention little about personal life (I really need a good book with biographical details of architects but have yet to find one).
Anyone fancy filling in some more on [[Bob Switzer]] the inventor of Day-Glo that I just created...
Justinc
Not surprisingly, the average coverage of subjects is fairly poor. 64% of articles were rated "low" or "stub", indicating they did not have even a basic chronology of the subject's life, and 29% were rated "medium", indicating a basic chronology but nothing more. 6% were rated "good", with a relatively complete chronology, and one article was approaching "featured" quality. While doing the survey, one of the biographies was deleted for lack of notability, one as being unverifiable, and two were listed as copyvios.
Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of people don't get a good bio in Wikipedia until they die and there are nicely-researched obituaries to use as sources.
Even better, we're more free to criticize dead people because they can't sue us for libel.
Would it be too unreasonable to propose WikiProject Assassinate People With Wikipedia Biographies? :P