I've finished my review of the 100 randomly-selected articles I surveyed back in November: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100 Of the original 100, seven have been deleted, and another three have been turned into redirects.
Over the past three months, there were 1,121 edits to the articles on the list, giving a mean of 11.56 edits per non-deleted article.
Not much happens on most articles: of the 93 articles remaining in the survey, the median number of edits was 3. Nine articles were completely unchanged since November, and all but 18 of the articles had fewer than ten changes. About 99% of the edits were minor things: adding interwiki links, fiddling with categories and stub tags, adjusting wikilinks, and spelling/grammar fixes. Only a few edits added a paragraph or more of information.
At the other extreme of editing are the four articles with 100 or more edits. Unfortunately, this does not neccessarily translate into an increase in article content. Of the four articles, only [[Midfielder]] was expanded significantly. [[Aleksandr Pushkin]] and [[Lawrenceville School]] were cleaned up, with some addition of information. [[List of Barney & Friends stage shows]] merely suffered prolonged vandalism.
Overall, quality has improved, but not by much. Out of the original 20 substubs, five have been deleted, and four have improved to "stub" status. Three articles originally classified as "low" have improved to "good". None of the stubs has improved beyond stub status, and there are still no articles considered "high" quality. No article declined significantly in quality.
The sourcing situation hasn't changed much: two articles gained sources, while one article is now unsourced. [[General Semantics]], the messiest, most over-referenced article in the previous round of the survey, gained another three sources, for a total of 17. Fortunately, it also gained a great deal of improvement.
The image situation has changed significantly. Originally, free images outnumbered non-free ones by 2:1, with only a few images of unknown copyright situation. The ratio of free to non-free images hasn't changed, and the total number of images has gone up. Of the six unsourced images in the original survey, all of them have been sourced or removed. However, there are also 17 images with apparently-incorrect free-license tags: 16 images from Commons with disputed PD-self tags, and a GFDL tag on an image that is probably not eligable for copyright.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Hi Mark, Just wanted to say "keep up the good work". This is really brilliant. Well, not necessarily the results, but, you know.
Do you have any ideas for a next stage? Should we look at targeting specific kinds of articles? Instead of selecting randomly, choosing say 20 highly controversial topics, 20 former featured articles, 20 pop culture, 20 maths/science...etc etc?
How can I help?
Steve
On 3/1/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
I've finished my review of the 100 randomly-selected articles I surveyed back in November: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100 Of the original 100, seven have been deleted, and another three have been turned into redirects.
Over the past three months, there were 1,121 edits to the articles on the list, giving a mean of 11.56 edits per non-deleted article.
Not much happens on most articles: of the 93 articles remaining in the survey, the median number of edits was 3. Nine articles were completely unchanged since November, and all but 18 of the articles had fewer than ten changes. About 99% of the edits were minor things: adding interwiki links, fiddling with categories and stub tags, adjusting wikilinks, and spelling/grammar fixes. Only a few edits added a paragraph or more of information.
At the other extreme of editing are the four articles with 100 or more edits. Unfortunately, this does not neccessarily translate into an increase in article content. Of the four articles, only [[Midfielder]] was expanded significantly. [[Aleksandr Pushkin]] and [[Lawrenceville School]] were cleaned up, with some addition of information. [[List of Barney & Friends stage shows]] merely suffered prolonged vandalism.
Overall, quality has improved, but not by much. Out of the original 20 substubs, five have been deleted, and four have improved to "stub" status. Three articles originally classified as "low" have improved to "good". None of the stubs has improved beyond stub status, and there are still no articles considered "high" quality. No article declined significantly in quality.
The sourcing situation hasn't changed much: two articles gained sources, while one article is now unsourced. [[General Semantics]], the messiest, most over-referenced article in the previous round of the survey, gained another three sources, for a total of 17. Fortunately, it also gained a great deal of improvement.
The image situation has changed significantly. Originally, free images outnumbered non-free ones by 2:1, with only a few images of unknown copyright situation. The ratio of free to non-free images hasn't changed, and the total number of images has gone up. Of the six unsourced images in the original survey, all of them have been sourced or removed. However, there are also 17 images with apparently-incorrect free-license tags: 16 images from Commons with disputed PD-self tags, and a GFDL tag on an image that is probably not eligable for copyright.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:32:39 -0800, you wrote:
At the other extreme of editing are the four articles with 100 or more edits. Unfortunately, this does not neccessarily translate into an increase in article content.
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
- -- Sean Barrett | If catapults are outlawed, only sean@epoptic.org | outlaws will have catapults.
Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
It would be a shame to lose [[F-19]]. And wouldn't all articles on fictional entities have go too? Mythology too. Come to think of it, haven't people put [[God]] on AfD before?
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
It would be a shame to lose [[F-19]].
I have a book which explains the story of F-19 and how it came into being in about one paragraph; unfortunately I can't add the reference at the moment because I've lent it to someone.
On 3/6/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
It would be a shame to lose [[F-19]].
I have a book which explains the story of F-19 and how it came into being in about one paragraph; unfortunately I can't add the reference at the moment because I've lent it to someone.
Let me guess: you're related to Pierre de Fermat.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/6/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
It would be a shame to lose [[F-19]].
I have a book which explains the story of F-19 and how it came into being in about one paragraph; unfortunately I can't add the reference at the moment because I've lent it to someone.
Let me guess: you're related to Pierre de Fermat.
*grin*
Alright, I've found the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skunk_works&action=edit%C2%A7i...
Alright, it would help if I'd actually read the article...
Basically, the [[Testor Corporation]] took the front end of the [[SR-71 Blackbird]], stuck some wings on it, and sold it as a model kit; Lockheed and Air Force officials were furious that what was supposed to be a top-secret project had become a best-selling kid's Christmas present.
I have no idea if the rest of the article is true or not, but that's what I know about it. Well, at least it's a reference...
BTW, the same reference appears in [[Aurora aircraft]], which is also mostly speculation; according to Ben Rich, Aurora was the CIA codename for the /funding/ of the B-2. Getting enough money to build an aircraft that cost $2 billion apiece was such a monumnetal task that they codenamded it. I have no reason to believe otherwise; if such a plane /had/ existed, /someone/ would have heard about it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
Sounds familiar. For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so little can be said in so many words by so many editors. For all that, it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by any reliable source as having been used. Guy (JzG)
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
It would be a shame to lose [[F-19]]. And wouldn't all articles on fictional entities have go too? Mythology too. Come to think of it, haven't people put [[God]] on AfD before?
Stan
There are sources describing the F-19, Harry Potter, and Odin. I could thoroughly footnote any discussion of YHVH.
Can anyone point me to a reputable published description of a donkey punch?
- -- Sean Barrett | If catapults are outlawed, only sean@epoptic.org | outlaws will have catapults.
On 3/6/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
There are sources describing the F-19, Harry Potter, and Odin. I could thoroughly footnote any discussion of YHVH.
Can anyone point me to a reputable published description of a donkey punch?
Such a thing may not exist for "NSA in popular culture" or whatever the example was, either. Most of the donkey punch article is about such references anyway.
Steve
Can anyone point me to a reputable published description of a donkey punch?
http://www.bookslut.com/propaganda/2003_10_000777.php
Sorry, that's as good as I could do on short notice.
Cheers, Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ben Lowe stated for the record:
Can anyone point me to a reputable published description of a donkey punch?
http://www.bookslut.com/propaganda/2003_10_000777.php
Sorry, that's as good as I could do on short notice.
Cheers, Ben
Wow. I suppose I could try to cling to "reputable," but there doesn't seem to be much point. I surrender. That's definitely a ... source, and it's clear that if this article were removed, Wikipedia would be ... a few bytes smaller.
/me staggers away, stunned.
- -- Sean Barrett | Many occasions arise when a woman versed sean@epoptic.org | in the knowledge and use of firearms | may find that information and skill | of great importance. --Annie Oakley
On 3/6/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?
The existence of the subject is not relevant, or topics like god, aliens, ESP etc would not be allowed. But as long as there are decent sources which say something interesting about the topic, then it qualifies for WP.
Steve
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:44:34 +0100, you wrote:
The existence of the subject is not relevant, or topics like god, aliens, ESP etc would not be allowed. But as long as there are decent sources which say something interesting about the topic, then it qualifies for WP.
Indeed - which is why we have extensive coverage of Pokemon cards and other minor fictional subjects (like it or not).
As to "decent sources" that rather invites the question of what qualifies as a decent source. In this case the reliable sources are mainly cited as reacting to a description fed to them by somebody else inna "that sounds dangerous" stylee. There is also reportedly a pr0n film based on this subject. I personally don't view the pr0n industry as a reliable source, but the creators of the many articles on the associated "stars" seem to think it is. Guy (JzG)
On 3/6/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Indeed - which is why we have extensive coverage of Pokemon cards and other minor fictional subjects (like it or not).
I would have to argue that there is a difference between a *fictional* entity, and an allegedly (but unproven) existing entity. No one claims to have invented donkey punches.
(Not that this changes the result of anything for me, but for others it might).
Steve