[WikiEN-l] "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

[Fadix]

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 at 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 at 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