...regarding the quality of our work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test
Plus ça change, plus cest la même chose. Kosebamse
Well, your list at least led me to [[opcode]], which was awful, so I rewrote it. ;)
Our coverage of many basic computing topics is rather surprisingly horrendous.
-Matt (User:Morven)
--- kosebamse@gmx.net wrote:
...regarding the quality of our work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test
Plus ça change, plus cest la même chose. Kosebamse
I think it's worth making a distinction between the quality of randomly-chosen articles, and the quality of popular articles. It's hard to know, of course, but I'd doubt that many of the articles on your list would be getting more than a handful of readers every month. It's quite possible that the average quality of Wikipedia articles is staying the same (as people constantly add new stubs / fancruft etc), while the average "Wikipedia experience" of a reader goes up.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
kosebamse@gmx.net wrote:
...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
Just did it myself; opened 20 "random article" tabs and checked them for cohesiveness and such.
The "good" articles were: 1. [[Massachusetts State Police]] 2. [[Owl Creek Mountains]] 3. [[Palmer Lake, Colorado]] (rambot) 4. [[Hopewell Junction, New York]] (rambot) 5. [[Dewey Square]] 6. [[Robber baron (industrialist)]]
The "bad" articles were: 1. [[Raycom National Tower]] 2. [[Jean Paré]] 3. [[Serge]] 4. [[Hartogs' lemma]] 5. [[Armus]]
The "marginal" articles were: 1. [[D M Vasudevan]] 2. [[Munsu Cup Stadium]] 3. [[Donald Oliver]] 4. [[Treaty of Passarowitz]] 5. [[Ernest Vessiot]]
Apart from that I got two lists and two articles that I really wasn't sure about.
So: 30% good, 25% bad, 25% marginal bordering on bad, and 20% neutral. I'd guess that the actual proportion of "good" aritcles is somewhere between 20 and 30 percent.
On 11/8/05, kosebamse@gmx.net kosebamse@gmx.net wrote:
...regarding the quality of our work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test
On this subject, I recently did a survey of 100 randomly-selected articles. The results are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100
Of the articles, there were two that I speedy-deleted, two that I listed on VfD, one that I tagged as a copyvio, and one that someone else had already tagged. There were nine articles I would classify as "good" and 14 that I considered as having covered most of the basics. There were 44 I would consider stubs, and 20 one-line or two-line substubs. There were six disambiguation pages, three lists, and four articles I couldn't classify. There were no articles I would be willing to list on FAC, although one came close.
Of articles in need of sourcing, 14 out of 90 had some form of source information. There were 33 sources listed at the ends of articles, although 14 of those came from a single article.
In the good news department, free images outnumbered non-free by 2:1, while only about 15% were effectively unsourced. Almost half of them could be developed into featured articles without too much difficulty.
In terms of article subjects, there were four articles on fictional subjects, three of them on Digimon. There were ten articles related to popular music: four bands, four musicians, one album, and one record label. There were ten cities, only one of which was a Rambot stub. There were two schools.
I'll be updating the survey every month or two. It'll be interesting to see how the articles change over time.
-- [[User:Carnildo]]