Full Version: yes, de.wiki is broken.
This was the featured article today.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:39am) 
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.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 6:39pm)
I think it's about the head of whoever made the decission to let this be the featured article on de.wiki.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 8:39pm)
What's the matter, Eric? You have a bug up your ass?
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.
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.
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.
Dewiki made a mistake here, but various reports say they have the best overall quality in articles, and don't tolerate any fancruft.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.