[Gendergap] Breast cancer vs. Gangnam Style

2012-12-22 Thread Ole Palnatoke Andersen
My friend Peter just tweeted* Den engelske wikipedia-artikel om Gangnam
Style er både længere og har over dobbelt så mange kilder som artiklen om
brystkræft. ('the English Wikipedia article on Gangnam style is longer and
has more than twice as many references as the article on breast cancer').

He's right ** ***. Will someone please make him wrong?


TIA,
Ole


*) https://twitter.com/peterbrodersen/status/282539324396953602
**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangnam_Style
***) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer


-- 
http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


Re: [Gendergap] Breast cancer vs. Gangnam Style

2012-12-22 Thread Ole Palnatoke Andersen
Thank you, Risker.

Measuring article length can be rather meaningless in a hyperlinked medium.
:-)


On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 We have a saying on English Wikipedia:  Other stuff exists[1], which
 emphasizes that the importance or significance of one article should not be
 judged by comparing it to another article. It is a logical fallacy that,
 because one article is longer, or has more references, or better images,
 etc., that another article is substandard.

 In this case, the comparison of these two articles shows that the breast
 cancer article is very well referenced for its subject using top quality
 references; it is well written and covers every aspect of the subject in
 depth.  There are many daughter articles, as well.

 The Gangnam Style article is loaded with templated charts illustrating
 press reaction in dozens of countries, awards won, chart positions in just
 about as many - all of which have a large number of references, as each
 individual entry must be verifiable.  It is not terribly well written, with
 little differentiation between significant facts and trivia, and most of
 the templated information should probably be broken out into daughter
 articles.

 Which is the better article?  The breast cancer one, by far.  Just because
 it's not as long as another article that has far too much trivia in it,
 doesn't mean it isn't the superior article.

 Risker/Anne


 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists

 On 22 December 2012 12:46, Ole Palnatoke Andersen o...@palnatoke.orgwrote:

 My friend Peter just tweeted* Den engelske wikipedia-artikel om Gangnam
 Style er både længere og har over dobbelt så mange kilder som artiklen om
 brystkræft. ('the English Wikipedia article on Gangnam style is longer and
 has more than twice as many references as the article on breast cancer').

 He's right ** ***. Will someone please make him wrong?


 TIA,
 Ole


 *) https://twitter.com/peterbrodersen/status/282539324396953602
 **) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangnam_Style
 ***) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer


 --
 http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap




-- 
http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap