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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 13/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l