My experience very closely resembles Ori's. One of our relatively high priorities is to settle article policy questions that will allow us to clean up Wikipedia articles with confidence.
I propose to discuss these fine points here: http://textop.org/smf/index.php?board=24.0 We really do need to debate and adopt policies about things like info boxes, etymology, footnotes, references, interwiki links, images, and a lot of other stuff. The "Article Policy" board is probably the best place to actually debate about policy proposals. We can then actually articulate the results on the wiki. We're almost done going through applications, by the way. We're about to send out some reminders and encouragement, which should rope in a bunch more people. I can also report some excellent progress talking to foundations today and last Thursday. We might have to join an umbrella/incubator organization for a while, though, to get the money available to us. --Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > RedleX Mail > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 5:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Citizendium-l] Some lessons from the pilot > > > After fiddling with stuff for a few days, some initial impressions: > > The sheer amount of rubbish in WP is mind-boggling. I've tried some > "Random Article" button pushing and the results where almost > invariably junk, copyright violations and then more junk. A delete > procedure is needed. Badly! > > Another marked phenomenon is that the "big and important" articles > suffer from severe "hyperedititis" -- articles about > important issues > are edited, re-edited, split into sub-articles, which are split yet > again, then a special template is added, which further extends the > possibilities to some more splits, and so on. > > Added to the hyperedititis is a second annoying WP disease of > hypertemplatitis. I some cases, there are 5, 6 or 7 different > templates, which are usually useless. In the article "Adolf Hitler" > there are 12 of those. > > This and that "hyper" does not mean that the article is necessarily > well researched. If we take the "Adolf Hitler" article -- the > references makes one want to cry. Of the 21 footnotes, most are > references to dated books, but also to short reviews, newspaper > articles, and so on. It makes one feel you cannot deal with > the thing > except by deleting the whole thing and starting from scratch. > > Ori > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
