Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + +
Wikipedia:Quality
:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)