[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71,
From:       Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2009-06-22 0:02:06
Message-ID: 25376529.141245628922046.JavaMail.SYSTEM () ATSL_Laptop
[Download RAW message or body]

I read "comprehensive" in this context to mean comprehensive coverage of topics in \
the enclyclopedia - i.e. lots of articles - rather than comprehensive coverage within \
a particular article. 

----- "Dahsun" <dahsun@yahoo.com> wrote: 
> From: "Dahsun" <dahsun@yahoo.com> 
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Sent: Sunday, 21 June, 2009 14:06:08 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41 FA and comprehensiveness 
> 
> 
> Hi, picking up Charles's point "Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they \
> don't care about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to  the point \
> where there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third  vertex is \
> comprehensiveness". In my experience as an FA reviewer comprehensiveness is one of \
> the FA criteria, and I've seen FA candidates get significantly more comprehensive \
> at FAC. I've also seen problems when reviewers have seen omissions that the \
> nominator doesn't want in "their" article.  
> WerSpielChequers 
> > ------------------------------ 
> > 
> > Message: 4 
> > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:18:27 +0100 
> > From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> 
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The London Review of Books on 
> > Wikipedia 
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> 
> > Message-ID: <4A3E08F3.7060205@ntlworld.com> 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; 
> > format=flowed 
> > 
> > Cormac Lawler wrote: 
> > > 
> > > I think what's interesting here is asking: how does 
> > Wikipedia harness 
> > > the energy of the public (for want of a better word) 
> > in a way that can 
> > > be more productive, useful (or at least less 
> > brain-sporkingly 
> > > nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section 
> > does? 
> > Of course just about any model is superior to encouraging 
> > low-level 
> > ranting. The "open comments" are generally less 
> > interesting than a 
> > letters page because there may be no filter. Or, as in the 
> > case of the 
> > Sunday Times it seems, there is moderation but only to save 
> > 
> > embarrassment to the paper. WP's basic idea of "merciless 
> > editing" is 
> > one way, and it gets to one major issue at the root: 
> > touchtyping skills 
> > don't make you a great writer, while basic copyediting 
> > skills can 
> > transform rubbish prose. 
> > > 
> > > But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's 
> > book, the 
> > > reviewer singled out the collaboratively-written 
> > afterword as better 
> > > written than Andrew's book, which he found "full of 
> > interest but 
> > > rather indulgent, containing too much incidental 
> > detail about people 
> > > Lih wants to please." I can't imagine Andrew is fully 
> > happy about that 
> > > (!) - but it's an interesting take. 
> > Time for one of my current pet theories: the "triangle of 
> > takes" on 
> > upgrading WP. Andrew Lih represents one vertex, as you can 
> > see in his 
> > recent NYT interview, where he cites popular culture and 
> > politics as the 
> > drivers in WP. Basically this is about being very current 
> > in our 
> > coverage. Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they 
> > don't care 
> > about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to 
> > the point where 
> > there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third 
> > vertex is 
> > comprehensiveness. Lih's book - well, I haven't read it yet 
> > (sorry, 
> > Andrew), but you can see it fitting roughly in with where I 
> > locate him 
> > on the triangle. The "incidental detail" is often how 
> > popular culture or 
> > political journalism is (deliberately) written, rather than 
> > trying for 
> > in-depth or serious. 
> > 
> > Anyway, I commend the triangle: currency, 
> > comprehensiveness, quality. 
> > Most people around the wiki can probably plot themselves 
> > somewhere in 
> > the interior, and this gives a kind of map of prorities. 
> > 
> > Charles 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------ 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > WikiEN-l mailing list 
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
> > 
> > 
> > End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41 
> > **************************************** 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> WikiEN-l mailing list 
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
> 
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]