Talk:Enciclomedia: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard Arvi Hughes (checklist) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
| | ==Advertisement?== | ||
| | I'm not sure about this at all; there's an article on the [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclomedia Spanish Wikipedia] about it, so it could be well-known, but it reads more like an advertisement at present. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 07:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Thanks - I'll add a criticism bit for now, maybe a bit more later.--[[User:Luke Brandt|luke]] 16:16, 7 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Well, sorry about that, but I removed these two sentences: | |||
:The project has been criticised as lacking specific markers of success and checks to see if such indicators have been met. It's also been questioned whether proper accounting procedures have been put in place, as there have been significant cost overruns. | |||
| | |||
The way to make an article sound less "like an advertisement" is not to create a "criticisms" section (one of the more regrettable habits Wikipedians have gotten into) but to change the tone/wording into something closer to what you'd see in a newspaper article--or, for that matter, a traditional encyclopedia. I've removed the above criticisms because anything beginning "The X has been criticized"--in passive voice, in other words--raises alarms. Who so criticizes it? So here's an example where, at least here on the talk page, I would like to see some actual support for negative claims made before we make them. This is particularly true since the article is part of [[:Category:Topic Informant Workgroup|Topic Informant Workgroup]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:00, 7 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Another sentence deleted: "The efficacy of computers in education is disputed, although ''Enciclomedia'' can be seen as a [[teaching aid]]." "The efficacy of computers in education is disputed"--sure it is, but who cares? That's not relevant to the topic of the article here. "...although ''Enciclomedia'' can be seen as a [[teaching aid]]." That's obvious given the first sentence of the article; so it's unnecessary. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:02, 7 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:49, 26 September 2007
Advertisement?
I'm not sure about this at all; there's an article on the Spanish Wikipedia about it, so it could be well-known, but it reads more like an advertisement at present. John Stephenson 07:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks - I'll add a criticism bit for now, maybe a bit more later.--luke 16:16, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, sorry about that, but I removed these two sentences:
- The project has been criticised as lacking specific markers of success and checks to see if such indicators have been met. It's also been questioned whether proper accounting procedures have been put in place, as there have been significant cost overruns.
The way to make an article sound less "like an advertisement" is not to create a "criticisms" section (one of the more regrettable habits Wikipedians have gotten into) but to change the tone/wording into something closer to what you'd see in a newspaper article--or, for that matter, a traditional encyclopedia. I've removed the above criticisms because anything beginning "The X has been criticized"--in passive voice, in other words--raises alarms. Who so criticizes it? So here's an example where, at least here on the talk page, I would like to see some actual support for negative claims made before we make them. This is particularly true since the article is part of Topic Informant Workgroup. --Larry Sanger 17:00, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Another sentence deleted: "The efficacy of computers in education is disputed, although Enciclomedia can be seen as a teaching aid." "The efficacy of computers in education is disputed"--sure it is, but who cares? That's not relevant to the topic of the article here. "...although Enciclomedia can be seen as a teaching aid." That's obvious given the first sentence of the article; so it's unnecessary. --Larry Sanger 17:02, 7 May 2007 (CDT)