On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:01:50 +0200, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Le Sunday 18 July 2004 10:17, Mark Ryan a écrit :
We would need the spell checker to be reactivated and modified so that articles can be checked on their own (rather than giving a huge list of all pages with particular errors in them). I don't fancy copying entire articles into MS Word to check for errors (and people checking articles for correct spelling would be likely to miss many errors). I know the spell checker was a huge resource drain on Wikipedia, but if it is restricted to those permitted to validate articles, it shouldn't be so bad.
No, real paper publications are always ultimately checked by human eyes even for spelling. Automatic spelling is just a tool, but it can't detect every spelling mistakes.
~Mark Ryan
Yann
-- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I know automatic spell checking is just a tool. But we still have spelling errors being found now, years after they were first inserted into articles. Humans are prone to errors. I know I can proofread an essay of my own over ten times and not notice the most obvious spelling errors. An automatic spell checker would just draw our attention to possibly overlooked errors. How many spelling errors would you find on Britannica?