[WikiEN-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[kosebamse at gmx.net]

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Meanwhile if you can compile a list of important articles that have
>not fared well under the wiki (I submit that this could be a fairly
>brief list, perhaps 1,000 or so) perhaps a team of interested
>individuals can take those articles off the main wiki and hothouse
>them for a while--or even, as you suggest, rewrite from scratch.  I'd
>be interested to see if this approach produces significantly better
>articles.

While interesting, this would divert us from the real problem, because, to
compile such a list, one would need good criteria for quality and have them
transparently implemented. But we have no clue as to which articles are good
and which aren't. We have no clue how much nonsense, libel and deliberate
misinformation there is in our content. And unless we dedicate our work to
quality improvement and nothing else, we won't find out. We waste our time
trying to catch up with a steady inflow of obvious vandalism, cluelessness,
crackpottery, editwarring etc., amassing ever more content of doubtful
quality, while our foremost priority should be to produce quality articles.

Kosebamse

-- 
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++