i started improving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology and i felt somehow left alone by you native english speakers only writing emails :)
what do you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WPRV prepared by the team around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team? this team around martin walker also made quite an effort of defining what is "important", defining an assessment scheme and a nomination process: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria * e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Assessment#Importance_scale * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment rupert. On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 20:47, Alasdair <w...@ajbpearce.co.uk> wrote: > You can see all my contributions to en.wikipedia at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ajbp or get an overview at > http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ajbp&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia > > Even if I had never contributed to wikipedia in my life however: If you look > at my messages, I was very obviously making a point about the clearly > expressed views of contributors far more experienced than myself (and, > incidentally, far more experienced than you) and suggesting that we consider > such views in the future with the respect they deserve when discussing > en.wiki content issues. I would expect anyone responding to me to be able to > comprehend that. > > It is not very becoming of you to respond to what was a productive > conversation with such a lazy "theoretical" message. > -- > Alasdair > > > On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:38, rupert THURNER wrote: > >> did you already improve one of these articles or you are just writing >> theoretical mails about theoretically improving a list, and >> theoretically improving some text? >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 19:31, Alasdair <w...@ajbpearce.co.uk >> (mailto:w...@ajbpearce.co.uk)> wrote: >> > If you look at the '10,000" articles list - it becomes very clear that the >> > selection is totally arbitrary. ( more actors than painters listed - as a >> > random example) So far the best suggestion that I have seen for >> > "important" articles is that a wikiproject has ranked that article as >> > "high" or "top" importance. But even that is a totally arbitrary criterion. >> > >> > -- >> > Alasdair >> > >> > >> > On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> > >> > > On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner <peter.dam...@btinternet.com >> > > (mailto:peter.dam...@btinternet.com)> wrote: >> > > > Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for >> > > > philosophy, none >> > > > of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism, >> > > > empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is >> > > > this? >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > There are always going to be disagreements over what should constitute >> > > a vital article. That isn't important to this discussion. I think most >> > > people's top 1000 articles would have a lot of overlap (I expect most >> > > of the top 100 VAs would appear at least somewhere in most people's >> > > top 1000) and even articles in that overlap aren't particularly good >> > > at the moment. >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > foundation-l mailing list >> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > > (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto: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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
