[Wikipedia-l] Look Who's Using Wikipedia ... gerardm

[GerardM]

Hoi,
Your reply seems to assume en.wikipedia only. I am however not as
pessimistic as you are.. The English Wikipedia provides a wealth of great
quality information in many subjects. Even though it is a work in progress
it gets better all the time in both quality and quantity.

When asked where the English Wikipedia fails, it is for me in the other
cultures. However, when you consider the Wikipedians that have a different
mother tongue, there is a group that does their native language and there
are others that work on the English Wikipedia. It could be argued that the
quality of the articles in the English Wikipedia has a relation to the
quality of the Wikipedia in the local language.

As to improving the "other" Wikipedias, there are many ways in which this
can be done. The question is do these Wikipedias have to be in the exact
mould of the "big ones" or is some cultural diversity allowed ?

Thanks,
    GerardM



On 3/7/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> The problem is with the current rules on en.wikipedia which are totally
> geared towards western style relevance and references ,and the bias
> amongst editors,  it is difficult to get the same debt for Africa, Asia
> and South America. Something has got to give. And the rules will never
> be changed because of the western pov of most of our editors. So we will
> have to accept that we will be weak in these areas forever. Or somehow
> with a miracle an exception clause has to be made for topics regarding
> this area.
>
> Waerth
>
> >Hoi.
> >Wikipedia is very much lacking in all areas.. What Wikipedia are you
> >talking about; it is not the same situation on all Wikipedias.. On the
> >English Wikipedia I would say that subjects to do with Africa, Asia and
> >South America could use a lot of refinement. One topic I think is
> >worrisome is the lack of a full picture for Iran. It really makes it
> >easy to paint them as a villain when there is so little public knowledge
> >about the people, the country and the culture.
> >
> >The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of
> >these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> >Frederick Noronha schreef:
> >
> >
> >>Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> >>in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
> >>>>
> >>>>I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> >>>>source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> >>>>encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> >>>>coverage.
> >>>>
> >>>>However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> >>>>health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> >>>>discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> >>>>cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> >>>>Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> >>>>when it comes to POV).
> >>>>
> >>>>Mark
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>