[WikiEN-l] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)

[David Gerard]

On 2 June 2010 15:27, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> The "best" articles are the creation of algorithmic and
>> judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure.
>> How to measure good writing?

> What do you mean by algorithmic?


I think I mean more like "procedural". There's a list of criteria.
These are what is measured so these are what are optimised for.


> And what do you feel needs changing in the review processes?


FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add "intro clear to casual reader"? I realise
some topics are just never going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for FAs to be about specialised topics.


- d.