[WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles

[phoebe ayers]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:50 AM, David Lindsey <dvdlndsy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope that the following will help to provide a littler more clarity.  I
> have listed those articles that clearly failed and those that were
> borderline along with a brief summation of some of the most significant
> points raised by the reviewers.

Thanks for the expansion, it's helpful.

> Clear failure:

>  3) California Gold Rush: The reviewer criticized the quality of writing,
> comparing it to that of a high school junior.  He also noted several
> omissions, but mentioned that if the intended audience for the article was
> high school students (this of course is not the case) most of these could be
> forgiven.  He wrote that due to poor-quality sourcing and many omissions the
> article would not be worthwhile for serious readers.

Wait: high school students aren't our audience? I think one thing that
causes a lot of confusion about Wikipedia is we have no clear audience
-- the general assumption has been that we're writing for the educated
layperson; I'd take that as a smart person with a general high school
education, with deviations from this where the technical nature of the
subject warrants it. By and large I think our articles tend to end up
on the overly technical side (see: all of the medical, math &
engineering articles). But what does the reviewer mean by a "serious
reader" in this case, I wonder? A college freshman? A historian? A
layperson who is really, really interested in the gold rush?

This of course doesn't excuse poor sourcing or omissions, or bad
writing, but I wonder who the reviewer imagines the audience of a
general encyclopedia to be.

-- Phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *