...regarding the quality of our work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Kosebamse
I would not call 20 random pages "unscientific", even if your evaluations are necessarily subjective.
I have formatted your user subpage into a table, for easier viewing and consolidated your results:
7 bad: 2 fancruft, 1 not of encyclopedic standard, 1 list of marginal interest, 1 needs work, 2 non-articles
8 stubs: 3 salvageable, 4 average / acceptable, 1 decent
5 good: 3 decent or fine, 2 acceptable / "short but informative"
Based on this, I give Wikipedia a score of 25% - a failing grade.
But all is not lost. If we mark articles as bad or stub, we could keep them somewhat hidden from the public.
Volunteer contributors could see them, of course, by "opting in". Everyone else (call them "general readers") would be told that we don't have an article on the subject yet BUT that we are working on it.
"And would you like to see the work in progress?"
Ed Poor Quality Maven
Ed Poor wrote
If we mark articles as bad or stub, we could keep them somewhat hidden from the public.
Ah, the insidious plausibility of the worst ideas!
The default must be that we keep the stubs in view, unless people somehow opt otherwise. How else are we going to get the encyclopedia written? I thought there was anyway consensus that the content took priority over all else, including impressing people with excessively tidy minds.
Charles
On 11/8/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ah, the insidious plausibility of the worst ideas!
The default must be that we keep the stubs in view, unless people somehow opt otherwise. How else are we going to get the encyclopedia written? I thought there was anyway consensus that the content took priority over all else, including impressing people with excessively tidy minds.
Charles
I don't think it is safe to use the word consensus anywhere near the encopedist/pro-content disspute (formaly know as the deletionist/inclusionist disspute we can't solve it but we can darn well rename it).
-- geni