1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Quality (view source)
Revision as of 20:17, April 25, 2007
, 20:17, April 25, 2007Another criteria
Don't think that random pages should be used to evaluate either place. To really evaluate the quality of the pages, i would propose that we take a random number of articles from some welknown encyclopedia and then make side by side comparison on how Wikipedia and Conservapedia cover those topics. As Wikipedia has been around for much longer and the goal is to measure the quality of the entries not quantity, i would be willing to discard those articles one cant find from Conservapedia. This would still ofc be an subjective view, but step for the better i think. (And yes, one can argue that to some degree quantity is allso an measure on how good an encyclopedia is) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't think that random pages should be used to evaluate either place. To really evaluate the quality of the pages, i would propose that we take a random number of articles from some welknown encyclopedia and then make side by side comparison on how Wikipedia and Conservapedia cover those topics. As Wikipedia has been around for much longer and the goal is to measure the quality of the entries not quantity, i would be willing to discard those articles one cant find from Conservapedia. This would still ofc be an subjective view, but step for the better i think. (And yes, one can argue that to some degree quantity is allso an measure on how good an encyclopedia is) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
== Another criteria ==
Number of links to the page, number of links in the page. Part of the essence of the wiki is the interconnected nature of the material. A page with no links that isn't linked from anywhere is poor compared to one that has links.
Given this, my survey:
=== [[John Curtin]] ===
19 words, 1 link out, no links in
=== [[Fargo]] ===
119 words, 6 links out, 1 link in
=== [[Vortigern]] ===
221 words, 9 links out, 2 links in
=== [[Scottish National Party]] ===
25 words, 4 links out, 3 links in
=== [[Infrared radiation]] ===
31 words, 2 links out, 1 link in
=== [[Ernest Hemingway]] ===
151 words, 10 links out, 3 links in + 2 "... Terms"
=== [[Immigration]] ===
141 words, 3 links out, 7 links in
=== [[Howard Stern]] ===
1695 words, 12 links out (+3 external), 1 link in
=== [[Microeconomics Terms F]] ===
2 words, 1 link out (+25 other terms), 26 links in (all from other terms)
=== [[Unferth]] ===
28 words, 3 links out, 1 link in
---
Given this, the only article that was reasonable in terms of content was Howard Stern. However, this article had ''very'' few links to other articles and had only one thing linking back in. Arguably, none of the other articles had anything that would be usable for a student or teacher trying to use this site as a reference. Trivial other sources (a hard copy dictionary for example) do a better job at defining the other words.
Articles being written today other than the 'hot ones' are poor at linking to other articles - even with ones that exist. If this is to become a site where people go to find out information, it needs information and it needs to have more connectivity between articles than an occasional see also or link off the site. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)