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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> yes, de.wiki is broken.
EricBarbour
post Thu 24th February 2011, 1:39am
Post #1


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This was the featured article today.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Thu 24th February 2011, 1:48am
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:39am) *

This was the featured article today.

Yep. I didn't mind the vulva article, but this one they might have left where the sun don't shine. It's not actually written particularly well, either.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 24th February 2011, 2:09am
Post #3


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 6:39pm) *

This was the featured article today.

I think it's about the head of whoever made the decission to let this be the featured article on de.wiki. ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 24th February 2011, 2:19am
Post #4


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 8:39pm) *

This was the featured article today.


What's the matter, Eric? You have a bug up your ass?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 24th February 2011, 2:40am
Post #5


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Very funny. You haven't contributed anything about de.wiki lately.

Look at the recent featured articles. They include stuff like this, which is admittedly an impressive article on film capacitors.
Greg, don'cha think it's a big jump from that to things stuck up people's asses, for an "encyclopedia"?

Try Googling the article title--you'll find a bunch of people on German-language forums, arguing about it.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 24th February 2011, 3:00am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 24th February 2011, 3:10am
Post #6


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 7:40pm) *

Greg, don'cha think it's a big jump from that to things stuck up people's asses, for an "encyclopedia"?

Try Googling the article title--you'll find a bunch of people on German-language forums, arguing about it.

I have to look now. You could maybe charge money to let people see Germans argue about an article about things stuck up people's asses. There's some serious irony possibilities.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Thu 24th February 2011, 1:10pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



Dewiki made a mistake here, but various reports say they have the best overall quality in articles, and don't tolerate any fancruft.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gruntled
post Fri 25th February 2011, 1:35pm
Post #8


Quite an unusual member
***

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue 2nd Feb 2010, 12:23pm
Member No.: 16,954



QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:10pm) *

Dewiki made a mistake here, but various reports say they have the best overall quality in articles, and don't tolerate any fancruft.

I've started contributing recently to Dewiki and it's certainly a much friendlier and more co-operative place than the English one (not that that's saying much). But I think standards are higher on the Spanish one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Sat 26th February 2011, 3:31am
Post #9


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Gruntled @ Fri 25th February 2011, 7:35am) *

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:10pm) *

Dewiki made a mistake here, but various reports say they have the best overall quality in articles, and don't tolerate any fancruft.

I've started contributing recently to Dewiki and it's certainly a much friendlier and more co-operative place than the English one (not that that's saying much). But I think standards are higher on the Spanish one.


From the parts of Spanish wiki I'm a bit familiar with - most of which are actually Mexico related - they do seem pretty solid. Strangely enough it seems like those articles are better written and more accurate and at the same time almost completely unsourced.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 26th February 2011, 5:33am
Post #10


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Fri 25th February 2011, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Gruntled @ Fri 25th February 2011, 7:35am) *

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:10pm) *

Dewiki made a mistake here, but various reports say they have the best overall quality in articles, and don't tolerate any fancruft.

I've started contributing recently to Dewiki and it's certainly a much friendlier and more co-operative place than the English one (not that that's saying much). But I think standards are higher on the Spanish one.


From the parts of Spanish wiki I'm a bit familiar with - most of which are actually Mexico related - they do seem pretty solid. Strangely enough it seems like those articles are better written and more accurate and at the same time almost completely unsourced.

That's because they're Spanish translations of en.wiki articles, but with some of the stupidness removed. Kind of like that Jeanne d'Arc article that Malleus trotted out.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Sat 26th February 2011, 6:08am
Post #11


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 25th February 2011, 11:33pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 25th February 2011, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Gruntled @ Fri 25th February 2011, 7:35am) *

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:10pm) *

Dewiki made a mistake here, but various reports say they have the best overall quality in articles, and don't tolerate any fancruft.

I've started contributing recently to Dewiki and it's certainly a much friendlier and more co-operative place than the English one (not that that's saying much). But I think standards are higher on the Spanish one.


From the parts of Spanish wiki I'm a bit familiar with - most of which are actually Mexico related - they do seem pretty solid. Strangely enough it seems like those articles are better written and more accurate and at the same time almost completely unsourced.

That's because they're Spanish translations of en.wiki articles, but with some of the stupidness removed. Kind of like that Jeanne d'Arc article that Malleus trotted out.


Not necessarily since I'm thinking mostly of articles which do not exist on English Wikipedia (and some of which I translated/created from es to en wiki). En wiki is horrible on Latin American history (probably should say history period, though the Scots seem to have their stuff together) and there's lots of holes there which Spanish wiki covers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Sat 26th February 2011, 11:24am
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
En wiki is horrible on Latin American history


It's a lot easier to find people who know spanish or any other language natively and speak english at a mediocre level, and vice versa. They add the material to the english wiki sometimes but the result is poorly written.

I noticed that in some cases, obvious defacement lasts considerably longer than on the english counterpart. http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=35172468
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 22nd 8 14, 3:42pm