Discussion, General discussion about this forum Options

[blissyu2]

Good idea for a game! Do we have to do an analysis on the first random article we come across, or can we wait until we find a bad one?

This has been the best topic since my (failed attempt) at "Article of the Weak". I still hope we can redo the Article of the Weak at some stage if anyone is game. You guys are better analyists than me with this stuff, but it makes good reading.

[Ta bu shi da yu]

Hmmm... I quite like this thread! Actual constructive criticism is always good for Wikipedia.

[everyking]

What they should do is make organized attempts at fixing up articles. It would be nice on two levels: one, you get a better article; two, somebody is bound to get worked up about banned editors organizing to do article cleanup/expansion, thus resulting in a revealing look at some misplaced priorities.

[Lir]

The mere existence of this thread, combined with the prominent link above to Matthew White's Wikiwatch, clearly shows that this board is populated by the kinds of people who have a genuine and authentic "good faith" interest in creating a freely available high-quality information source. This truth discredits the cabal, which goes out of its way to describe us as nothing but banned vandals and trolls.

[Blu Aardvark]

I wanted to bring this game back, because it is a quite amusing and useful way of observing Wikipedia's failures in action. Rather than posting the individual assessments in this thread, however, please create a new thread about your random article and post a thorough assessment there. Be aware, of course, that Wikipedians will almost certainly use your research to improve the article - if this is not a result you want, this game probably isn't for you.

[blissyu2]

My article of the weak didn't work too well, but hopefully this does. By the way, if anyone wants to rehash the article of the weak (worst article, as voted by you) then feel free. I won't have another go at it however.

Oh and by the way, this sub forum shouldn't be a sub-forum of Wikipedia editors. It should be a sub-forum of General. Or else standalone.

[Selina]

since it's got it's own subforum now, not much point in keeping it in one topic..

[Blu Aardvark]

Yeah, the idea is to lend more room to in-depth evaluation of articles. This forum is mainly an experiment, but one I'm hoping will work. Do break topics into individual threads - that's one of the ideas of this subforum. (Some topics, however - probably the majority of Wikipedia articles - would qualify as stubs or lists, and those should be evaluated in a lumped thread, because there isn't much to say about them. Larger articles deserve more in-depth review.)

I split some topics into individual threads and moved some posts around to facilite an easier-to-navigate forum.

[Pwok]

Hmmm... I quite like this thread! Actual constructive criticism is always good for Wikipedia.

Criticism need not be "constructive" to be good.