The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article Candidates • Featured Article Review • Articles for Deletion • Deletion Review

> Job sharing
thekohser
post Tue 30th June 2009, 4:27pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...
  • Impact on Google search results
  • Traffic trends
  • External links to (currently zero)
  • Article development
I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 30th June 2009, 4:36pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
thekohser
post Wed 5th October 2011, 5:16pm
Post #2


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
I thought now that about 2.5 years have gone by, we should check in and see how much the "crowdsourcing" and "Wikipedia is always improving" processes have been adding to the article I created.

Hmmm... not very much new and helpful has been added to my article, has it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 5th October 2011, 5:36pm
Post #3


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 5th October 2011, 6:16pm) *

I thought now that about 2.5 years have gone by, we should check in and see how much the "crowdsourcing" and "Wikipedia is always improving" processes have been adding to the article I created.

Hmmm... not very much new and helpful has been added to my article, has it?


How so? See what Larry said in 2001.


QUOTE
Wikipedia articles are getting constantly better as people go back again and again to old articles to add to them, reword misleading statements, correct factual errors, etc. This means that the quality of Wikipedia articles is ever-improving. An improvement in quality will be noticeable to experts. A shoddy article about topic T in 2001 will be a great article about topic T in 2002." Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", section "A few speculations about a perhaps amazing future.
Sanger, L., Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias Kuro5hin, Wed Jul 25, 2001.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 5th October 2011, 8:25pm
Post #4


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 5th October 2011, 1:36pm) *

...See what Larry said in 2001.


QUOTE
Wikipedia articles are getting constantly better as people go back again and again to old articles to add to them, reword misleading statements, correct factual errors, etc. This means that the quality of Wikipedia articles is ever-improving. An improvement in quality will be noticeable to experts. A shoddy article about topic T in 2001 will be a great article about topic T in 2002." Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", section "A few speculations about a perhaps amazing future.
Sanger, L., Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias Kuro5hin, Wed Jul 25, 2001.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121



I have to imagine that Sanger would retract that statement, knowing now what he knows now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
thekohser   Job sharing   Tue 30th June 2009, 4:27pm
Apathetic   I'm going to [url=http://stats.grok.se/en/200...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:06pm
thekohser   Just FYI your snide initial edit summary "Cr...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:17pm
Apathetic   Just the edit summary. It seems to hold the belief...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:29pm
CharlotteWebb   I'm going to [url=http://stats.grok.se/en/200...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:41pm
anthony   Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a ...   Tue 30th June 2009, 6:03pm
thekohser   Note, Greg: I would have stuck with the tradition...   Tue 30th June 2009, 6:40pm
sbrown   Thank you for agreeing that my article is "a...   Tue 30th June 2009, 7:46pm
EricBarbour   Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a ...   Wed 1st July 2009, 1:13am
Kato   Like it G. ;)   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:45pm
Jon Awbrey   Wow, Such Ado About Nada — methinks Apathetic ma...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:46pm
Apathetic   Wow, Such Ado About Nada — methinks Apathetic m...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:52pm
A Horse With No Name   Wow, Such Ado About Nada — methinks Apathetic m...   Tue 30th June 2009, 6:05pm
cyofee   Everyking got desysopped for suggesting he'd d...   Tue 30th June 2009, 5:58pm
Apathetic   Everyking got desysopped for suggesting he'd ...   Tue 30th June 2009, 6:15pm
thekohser   I'm awesome!   Tue 30th June 2009, 8:08pm
thekohser   Traffic on the article increased 16x once it was c...   Wed 1st July 2009, 12:53am
anthony   [url=http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Job_sharing]T...   Wed 1st July 2009, 1:26am
Milton Roe   ...See what Larry said in 2001. I have to i...   Wed 5th October 2011, 8:33pm
Larry Sanger   ...See what Larry said in 2001. I have to i...   Thu 6th October 2011, 6:48pm
EricBarbour   Not really--it was true in 2001. Virtually all a...   Thu 6th October 2011, 9:23pm

 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 5 13, 10:48am