From: "Matthew Brown" <morven(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An infobox achievement
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 02:05:34 -0700
In general, I feel that infoboxes are good in most cases where there
are dry statistics that probably need a table anyway.
-Matt
Amen.
This, I feel, is a good use of an infobox. It's statistics, there's little
room for ambiguity, and you can compress things into tables without losing
out on factual accuracy.
The problems start when, as part of the will to brevity, too much gets
compressed, and factual accuracy gets shoved aside en route. I'm not trying
to knock anyone here, but here are some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&oldid=12…
The infobox says that this was when he was born. No. It's when he was
baptised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Castle_of_Otranto&oldid=1…
You can read Geogre's entertaining account of the problems with that one on
the talk.
Then the infamous Paderewski example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignacy_Jan_Paderewski&oldid=1…
Two boxes?
I'm not trying to attack anyone here, because I don't feel that it's
anyone's fault. The problems are an inevitable offshoot of the will to
brevity: trying to stuff square pegs in round holes, trying to compress
things that can't accurately be compressed. When this occurs, so will
mistakes.
Oh, these things get fixed eventually, but there's no reason for us to
present inaccurate information at any time. We need to be careful of this.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!
http://www.newhotmail.co.uk