Indeed, Juliana, one example: for the complex process with regard to a German emperor in 1848/1849, it would have been possible to write one or several articles on e.g. the debates in the National Assembly. But what did de.wp? Elected with [[Kaiserdeputation]], the Assembly's delegation to the Prussian King, the most visible element of the process.
I now see that https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgr%C3%BCndung is a similar example, also an article suffering from the Frühmittelalter-problem and other issues. "Foundation of the Empire". * With the picture of von Werner about the proclamation on January 18, it highlights the most visible element. * "Staatsgründung": Very basically about the (more important) legal proceedings of the parliament * A huge part about the proclamation * "Sichtweise der süddeutschen Staaten": good part, but not much connected to the others * "Folgen und Bewertung": a mix of what followed and a judgement. With good elements, partially two long, some inaccuracies or improper wordings * Following a paragraph on the Franco-German relations (not quite suitable here, or in larger European context of the event in question, the foundation of the Empire). Following a list and map of the single German states, which we already have elsewhere * A list with literature, partially not directly related to the topic or dated * Surprisingly many footnotes, with a certain diversity of sometimes very general works. Haber is this person: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Haber_%28Historiker%29 In English short: http://www.hist.net/index.php?id=39&L=1 http://wiki.histnet.ch/index.php/Werkstattgespr%C3%A4ch_Wien_2010 E.g.: http://derstandard.at/1277337531926/Wer-viel-Zeit-hat-hat-bei-Wikipedia-das-Sagen I can't find anything more specific at the moment. Kind regards Ziko 2014-06-10 17:07 GMT+02:00 Juliana Bastos Marques <domusau...@gmail.com>: > Ziko, could you please supply the full reference to Haber's article? Indeed, > what I observe in History-related articles is almost a tendency towards > positivism, histoire événementielle - hence, for instance, the vast number > of battle themes. Discussion of historiographic approaches to concepts is > usually quite rare and badly written. > > Anyone willing to conduct comparative research on quality of History-related > articles, please drop me a note! > > Juliana. > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Anders, >> >> Thank you for bringing this up. My experience is that there is still a >> huge gap between computer-based quantity-oriented studies and >> human-based selective sample quality-oriented studies. >> >> I published in 2009 a paper on "small" or "weak" articles but I am >> afraid that it was too much a numbers' game. It contained a table that >> differentiated between large, middle-sized, small and mini Wikipedias, >> with some assumptions on the quality and the power to cover topics. >> >> Last year I started with a paper but the publishers seemed not to >> finish their project. I compared the notability criteria of en, de, >> nl, af (Afrikaans) and fo (Frisian) and found out that they are >> actually very comparable, as far as they can be compared at all. The >> often assumed "severity" of de.wp on notability seems to be a myth, >> maybe based on anti German cliche. >> >> Now I have made for my lectures a table of small and larger >> encyclopedic articles in order to compare a topic in different >> reference works. Reason for this is also my contribution to the >> Historians' Convention (Historikertag) later this year. My basic >> question is whether Wikipedia is a good starting point for a historic >> topic, following the research of early deceased Swiss historian Peter >> Haber. >> >> Haber made his point i.a. at the example of [[de:Frühmittelalter]] >> (early middle ages) in 2010. That article, he complained, contained no >> real inaccuracies, but still it was useless for a student. No good >> structure, some facts put one after the other etc. His explanation: if >> you want to write an article about a person, say about Henri Dunant, >> you take some biographies and write from his birth to his death and >> legacy. That's relatively easy and can be done by any good writer. But >> for a comprehensive article on the early middle ages, you must be a >> skilled historian very familiar with the period. >> >> (I now experience the same with a series of Wikipedia articles I write >> about a certain period in German history. Just following the (older) >> standard reference works would simply not make me happy, not be a >> really valuable contribution to Wikipedia. With (nearly) every new >> work I get from the inter library loan I see that it is good to wait >> with publication of an article until I have together the set of works >> I deem necessary. - I consider to write a kind of report about this >> series.) >> >> It would be great to have a set of criteria for an article typology, >> based partially on function of the article (overview, or registration >> of an item in a row etc.) and the inner quality (structure, >> comprehensiveness, based on literature etc.). >> >> Kind regards >> Ziko >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-06-10 14:34 GMT+02:00 Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se>: >> > My starting point have been the newly created articles on svwp. They >> > will >> > represent the usual bunch of football playser, tv-stars, computergames, >> > films etc where svwp are behind most versions but where enwp is >> > excellent. >> > The interesting comparisons comes from the next levels of articles that >> > can >> > be almost anything, a footballstadium in Kazan Russia, an albanian poet, >> > a >> > church in Venize, a specie with unclear taxonomy, the american solider >> > who >> > perhaps deserted etc. In these cases I only often find a corresponding >> > article in enwp, but also very often (around 20%) I find it in another >> > version and no presence in enwp. >> > >> > And when enwp is not giving me support, I most often find support in >> > eswp >> > and frwp, sometimes in dewp, but almost never in ptwp. For exemple >> > taxanomical threes with name in native and latin is about the weakest >> > in >> > ptwp. But I can be wrong and I would love to be part in a more complete >> > research on Q comparisons for the different versions >> > >> > >> > Anders >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Juliana Bastos Marques skrev 2014-06-10 14:06: >> > >> > This topic comes in handy for my research on Featured Articles in WP:PT. >> > Maybe some of you may remember my request a little while ago about >> > studies >> > on Wikipedias other than English. Well, not that I believe that the >> > Featured >> > Article requirements are a good evaluation per se, in terms of quality >> > of >> > content. >> > >> > Anders, what are the articles you evaluated? I'm curious to find out >> > what >> > was so bad in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Indeed, there are many problems >> > there, but I'm surprised to hear that it looks so bad. I know it's a >> > drop in >> > the ocean, but I've been fixing some new articles that are translations >> > from >> > bad English ones - which look good, but analyzing the content reveals >> > many >> > problems. >> > >> > Juliana. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Anders Wennersten >> > <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks for answer >> >> >> >> Your answer confirm my "fear", that focus is almost completly to en:wp >> >> and >> >> how it is compared with an ideal perfect Q >> >> >> >> My interest and what I believe the movement need before we dig into >> >> next >> >> round of strategy round is >> >> *what versions are dysfunctional. These represent a risk for the >> >> movement >> >> as they can jeoprdaize the brand name, as they are not living up to >> >> basic Q >> >> (and NPOV) >> >> *what can we learn from each other, why are some better in some aspects >> >> and worse in others? >> >> >> >> I would recommend a research approach much more basic just collecting >> >> some >> >> few data on each version (and forget about enwp) >> >> >> >> Anders >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Heather Ford skrev 2014-06-10 13:09: >> >> >> >> Hi Anders, >> >> >> >> Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on >> >> a >> >> project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias >> >> and >> >> I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the >> >> literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan & >> >> Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The >> >> majority of >> >> quality studies, we find, have been done on English Wikipedia (starting >> >> with >> >> the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have been few studies that >> >> assess of >> >> quality between languages. If you find anything else, let us know! >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> heather. >> >> >> >> [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract >> >> >> >> [2] >> >> >> >> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextual_information_quality_evaluation_-_The_case_of_Arabic_English_and_Korean_Wikipedia/file/60b7d51ae682e9912a.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Heather Ford >> >> Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme >> >> EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group >> >> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> (reposted from Wikimedia-i) >> >>> >> >>> I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our >> >>> different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done, >> >>> perhaps >> >>> you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy work I >> >>> believe we >> >>> should have basic facts on the table like this one >> >>> >> >>> I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking into >> >>> the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created on >> >>> sv.wp) (I >> >>> list them in order how often I use them to calibrate the svwp >> >>> articles). >> >>> >> >>> enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles >> >>> on >> >>> marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if >> >>> rather >> >>> bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?) >> >>> >> >>> eswp - a very good version, which in the general discussion are not >> >>> getting appropriate credit >> >>> >> >>> dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the >> >>> elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious >> >>> subjects >> >>> (that after time passes gets very relevant)? >> >>> frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and >> >>> the >> >>> different articles (even in same subject area) >> >>> nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality >> >>> on >> >>> articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies >> >>> itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered, >> >>> >> >>> nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext >> >>> sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in >> >>> other >> >>> languages >> >>> >> >>> ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and >> >>> accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are >> >>> uneven. I >> >>> now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use very >> >>> seldom as >> >>> the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the article content >> >>> >> >>> dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to the >> >>> country >> >>> >> >>> (arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated) >> >>> >> >>> (I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have >> >>> seen >> >>> serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above ones, I >> >>> am not >> >>> sure they even have basic patrolling in place) >> >>> >> >>> Anders >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > www.domusaurea.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list >> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list >> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > -- > www.domusaurea.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
