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 CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Discussion, General discussion about this forum
blissyu2
post Wed 5th April 2006, 1:29pm
Post #1


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ta bu shi da yu
post Sat 29th April 2006, 5:22pm
Post #2


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 27th Apr 2006, 7:56am
Member No.: 154

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Hmmm... I quite like this thread! Actual constructive criticism is always good for Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Sat 29th April 2006, 6:23pm
Post #3


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lir
post Tue 2nd May 2006, 9:26pm
Post #4


Communist
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun 26th Feb 2006, 10:27pm
Member No.: 4



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Blu Aardvark
post Fri 19th May 2006, 6:22am
Post #5


Gone
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun 26th Feb 2006, 10:46pm
Member No.: 2

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blissyu2
post Fri 19th May 2006, 8:06am
Post #6


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Fri 19th May 2006, 4:53pm
Post #7


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



since it's got it's own subforum now, not much point in keeping it in one topic..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Blu Aardvark
post Sat 20th May 2006, 10:54am
Post #8


Gone
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun 26th Feb 2006, 10:46pm
Member No.: 2

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pwok
post Sun 26th August 2007, 12:34am
Post #9


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed 15th Aug 2007, 12:13am
Member No.: 2,462

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ta bu shi da yu @ Sat 29th April 2006, 10:22am) *
Hmmm... I quite like this thread! Actual constructive criticism is always good for Wikipedia.

Criticism need not be "constructive" to be good.
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: 29th 8 14, 6:19pm