The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed, particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
-- Neil
Are any of these Articles Featured or even FAC's?
It may not exactly be fair to judge articles that aren't, because those are always in production.
~Ilya N. (AKA User: Ilyanep)
On 10/24/05, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed, particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed, particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability to self-correct. A simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in the Pepys article can be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly. What would be more interesting would be to have these same critics review the same articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place as a result of their criticism.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote
What would be more interesting would be to have these same critics review the same articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place as a result of their criticism.
Only one of them saw the potential of hypertext (Julius). I don't suppose you'd get more interest in the adaptive ability of wiki. Doesn't matter much.
Charles
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed, particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability to self-correct. A simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in the Pepys article can be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly. What would be more interesting would be to have these same critics review the same articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place as a result of their criticism.
Ec
As I also posted in another thread roughly on this topic, although we should be concerned whether or not Wikipedia is trustworthy we shouldn't get ourselves too concerned about the register's "articles" about Wikipedia since every single article is clearly biased against wikipedia beyond factuality so the register slamming us with criticism is just business as usual.
-Jtkiefer
True, but very bad articles that requires to be reorginized and important sections rewritten, will be left there, until major changes makes those corrections, which will take time. I am involved in such an article, and it takes weeks for me to improve such articles, when the not so good version is left there. Some times, continual many little changes doesn't work, and more the article is bad less it works. So, the worst articles out there will be left in bad shape for long, because they are those that need the most changes and the need to get important sections rewritten. I wonder, what is best, to leave such articles, or delete them until improving them and making them encyclopedic. If we can not rely on the informations in an article, while should it be accessible like any others? It is true that there are tags warning people, but how would the common reader know, what part of the information is OK and what is bad?
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust
Wikipedia?" in which
various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in
their field of
knowledge:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the
articles reviewed,
particularly the article on [[haute couture]],
which Vogue's editor
rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the
[[Encylopedia]]
article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's
a start... it might
well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's
McHenry Index by
improving the quality of this article, and backing
up its statement
with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference
to Wikipedia own
fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an
interest in one of
the fields reviewed, and commented that they were
somewhat dubious
about the factual accuracy of one of the
criticisms made in the
article ;-)
One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability to self-correct. A simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in the Pepys article can be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly. What would be more interesting would be to have these same critics review the same articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place as a result of their criticism.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
You are all missing the bigger story - what baseline are they comparing against for a "10" rating? The numbers are virtually meaningless unless you compare against what other encyclopedias provide (like Encarta or Britannica).
Here's a simple example - Steve Reich. It got a "7" even though the reviewer Mike Barnes said, "Factually, the entry on the composer Steve Reich is sound. All the facts that I have cross-checked were correct, but some of the writing is unhelpful... But with the Reich entry itself, and the links to other minimalist composers' entries and websites, one can access an impressive amount of information quickly."
To me, an educator, that would not merit a "C" grade, which is what I would consider a 7/10. How about the others?
On Encarta, it's behind the paid firewall. On Britannica, also behind a paid firewall, but the description: Reich, Steve... (75 of 234 words) On Wikipedia, around 1900 words, not including external links and notable works list.
I would find it hard to believe Mike Barnes could give Britannica more than a 3/10 just based on the length. It would be interesting to see how many words Encarta has.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 10/25/05, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed, particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
-- Neil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Andrew, The Encarta article has 563 words with internal links but no external links. If you use the MSN search tool, you get access to Encarta pages relevant to your search. I copied the article into Word and did a word count. I think we can rate Wikipedia the winner in terms of content in that exercise. It would be interesting to do a comparative test on all of the articles listed in the Guardian article. Regards *Keith*
On 10/28/05, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
You are all missing the bigger story - what baseline are they comparing against for a "10" rating? The numbers are virtually meaningless unless you compare against what other encyclopedias provide (like Encarta or Britannica).
Here's a simple example - Steve Reich. It got a "7" even though the reviewer Mike Barnes said, "Factually, the entry on the composer Steve Reich is sound. All the facts that I have cross-checked were correct, but some of the writing is unhelpful... But with the Reich entry itself, and the links to other minimalist composers' entries and websites, one can access an impressive amount of information quickly."
To me, an educator, that would not merit a "C" grade, which is what I would consider a 7/10. How about the others?
On Encarta, it's behind the paid firewall. On Britannica, also behind a paid firewall, but the description: Reich, Steve... (75 of 234 words) On Wikipedia, around 1900 words, not including external links and notable works list.
I would find it hard to believe Mike Barnes could give Britannica more than a 3/10 just based on the length. It would be interesting to see how many words Encarta has.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 10/25/05, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed, particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10 [[Basque people]] 7/10 [[TS Eliot]] 6/10 [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10 [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
-- Neil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l