Wikipedia talk:Project Galatea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The "Fix Crappy Prose" Challenge
I posted this to my talk page:
- I'd like everyone reading this who thinks they're a pretty good writer to middle-click* "Random page" twenty times and rewrite any crappy prose you find without sacrificing any factual content. Do this at least once a week.
- Detail and accuracy beat elegant prose, if you're forced to make the choice. But that doesn't make crappy prose a good idea.
- * or control-click or command-click. You do use Firefox, right?
- David Gerard 23:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Consistent Depth
I think the "less is less" requirement may conflict seriously with a good stylistic overhaul:
Sometimes, less is more. But often, less is just less. When doing a stylistic rewrite of an article, you will often need to completely rework the way the various facts are organized. Be careful, however, not to remove pertinent, relevant information. If a fact doesn't seem to fit, make it fit. If you can't make it fit, find out why. Only leave out information if it obviously and definitely does not belong in the article. Try not to get drawn into content disputes.
The problem, as my sister the lawyer pointed out, is that a typical article has very inconsistent depth of detail. Some sections should be small paragraphs, other paragraphs deserve sections, some large sections are really too detailed for any reasonable-sized article on the topic.
Even a good stylistic overhaul won't be able to fix this unless they can also cut out overly-detailed prose. But then that prose should go somewhere, maybe. In its own article if it's worthy, otherwise perhaps just in a sidebar article.
Please contribute thoughts on how this could be included in project Galatea... --Steve Rapaport 11:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of this project
In case anyone didn't know, this project has already been criticized in an online article for its statement that people on the project need not know anything about the article which they are attempting to improve. I agree somewhat with the critic, who is generally known as very anti-Wikipedia. The point of this project is to make Wikipedia more presentable to the public. But, what is the accuracy of the content we are presenting? Are we just making prettier non-facts? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 23:48
I think for the sake of not wasting your efforts, this project should focus on verifiable information, particularly the dozens of articles that have been copied directly from the CIA World Fact Book, or from the Library of Congress World Studies. These articles are basically lists of facts, all with sources, all verifiable (provided you check the article's history for vandalism). In this way, at least you can be sure that your efforts are not being wasted on what could potentially be completely false information. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-2 03:07
- First, this quotation was shamefully taken out of context. The actual guildline encourages the opposite. The point of this project is to have people who understand the topics review and rework the articles from start to finish. Know what you are working on. While there is no need to be an expert on the article you're working on (in fact, there are some advantages to being completely ignorant of the subject to start with), by the time you're done, you will have at least a working knowledge of the topic. If you don't, something is wrong; it is not a good idea to make meaningful and complex changes to an article without knowing a lot about it. Read the talk page. Follow the links. Take the time to fully understand what you're working on. In other cases, even someone who is not an expert can at least reorganize an incoherent and random article with better and flowing organization. Second, I've seen some of the Library of Congress sources, and while I think it can be good to insert public domain sources in some cases, many times the tone and context do not fit well into Wikipedia. This is exactly why knowledgeable editors need to rework those articles, Britannica articles from 100 years ago, and various haphazardly created Wikipedia articles into coherent articles for our time and suited toward Wikipedia's audience. Tfine80 03:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blatant stupidity
"While there is no need to be an expert on the article you're working on (in fact, there are some advantages to being completely ignorant of the subject to start with),"
This is a completely retarded point of view. If you know nothing about a subject, the only edits you should be making to an article on that subject are edits for formatting, spelling, and grammar. Jtrainor 10:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Did you read the rest of this talk page before you posted? --BrianSmithson 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
