uh .. you are right ... sometimes one might wonder what http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Education_Program are for if such basic articles stay in such a state. like one "professor for information technology": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Intro_to_Networks_(Xin_Xu)
for the article, what about starting with "information" and "technology", and explaining the information pyramid with data --> information --> knowledge, and associate with technology? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ladder * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology and then there are others like: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_processing * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processing rupert On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 16:01, Andreas K. <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > There was a lengthy discussion recently on en:WP at > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#FAC_spends_too_much_time_on_trivial_topics > > > > about the fact that many featured articles – at least on en:WP – are about > niche topics, while so-called "vital articles" (VA), i.e. core topics that > any encyclopedia would be expected to cover well, are underperforming, with > comparatively few making FA or GA. Looking at the VA list, > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VA > > topic areas like philosophy, languages and social sciences seem to be doing > particularly poorly. > > > > Generally speaking, it stands to reason that articles on niche topics are > easier to improve. One or two editors can work in relative peace and quiet, > and the number of sources is more manageable. If there are only two dozen > sources covering the topic, it's clear where to start; but where do you > start with a topic like Information technology? > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology > > > After ten years, it's still a start-class article in en:WP, little more > than a stub really (though I note it is a featured article in Catalan > Wikipedia). > > > Do vital articles need a special approach to get them to FA standard, > perhaps with Foundation-sponsored outreach to universities, formation of > article improvement teams involving outside experts, and expert involvement > in the FAC (featured article candidate) assessment process? Or do we trust > that these articles will improve in time through the normal process of > editing? > > > What is VA quality like in other language versions of Wikipedia? > > > Andreas > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
