[WikiEN-l] The downside of creating perfect articles

[Steve Bennett]

On 1/25/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are large swaths of technical topics which are not computer-geek
> technical stuff which are covered extremely poorly, if at all.
>
> Engineering materials, for example - aluminum, steel, composite
> materials, others.  I went through and it seemed like doubled the
> structural and aerospace materials article count 2-3 months ago, and I
> haven't even gotten started properly...

Yeah, that's true actually. On a slight sidetrack, I've also started
to notice that while we have many articles about individual products
in certain categories (cameras and phones, for example), in non-geeky
fields such articles are often quickly designated "spam". This may be
fair enough, if we think about sales volume, but I'm going to pay
closer attention and see if it's actually reasonable.

> Structural design concepts that anyone in an industry knows from
> school and are common professional knowledge, and still have no WP
> coverage.

In IT as well...our articles on stuff like data warehousing, business
intelligence, database design etc are pretty rudimentary and not very
well organised. Even someone sitting down with a first year textbook
and getting some basic, even coverage would be a great help. As
opposed to the very evident biases (often just caused by particular
interests of contributors) causing lopsided coverage atm.

Steve