My method of express analysis of Wikipedia articles
The motto of Wikipedia "Right boldly!" Does not negate the need to know all the rules of Wikipedia. I advise all Wikipedists (future and present) not just to read, but to learn how to read the Rules ;-)
Over the two years of participation in Wikipedia of varying degrees of activity (for several months I went to the ru-wiki as a job), I have developed a method of very quick assessment of the degree of compliance of the article text with the rules of the ru-wiki.
I don’t touch on spelling mistakes here, as there are so many of them on Wikipedia that you can find them in selected articles and Wikipedia rules. (Conclusion - language experts are not so often “rule boldly” as we would like).
')
For an example I will take article about Habré: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habrahabr
1) The ideal Wikipedist should not be “humane”, it is more like unerudated artificial intelligence, which is friends only with logic. In addition, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, therefore every word in a wiki article should logically follow from some other (secondary authoritative) source (publications in independent media, monographs, etc.)
2) The article, in which there are unobvious moments for "stupid AI", is ORISS (original source).
Example: How can I know that Pushkin’s name is Alexander and that he is a poet? This is written in the textbook and everything that I know about Pushkin I either learned from others or thought up myself. If I don’t tell in the article about Pushkin, from whom I learned this, it means I thought it up myself.
Some may think that I have gone mad when I demand a source for every word in the article, but this is justified by the fact that no one will write that he was "a liquid and organizer of the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy."
Example: in the “Habrahabr” article there are no references to secondary sources of information, so the whole article can be suspected of originality. I am not acquainted with Denis Kryuchkov, I do not work in Futuriko ...
3) Since our ideal is “stupid AI,” any vivid image, a living syllable, an abundance of adjectives and stylistically colored words, and other delights of a journalistic style may suggest such a violation of the rules as a “neutral point of view”.
Example: “But the vile instigator of war Hitler attacked the sacred inviolable Russia, forcing its noble leader ...” - the neutral point of view is not visible.
3a) Any text in a journalistic or artistic style in a wiki article must be reworked (at least remove adjectives :)). Without such processing, as a rule, do not achieve NTZ.
4) Verifiability. How can I know something? Only if someone tells me about it. It is not enough to indicate the sources; these sources must be verifiable.
Example: the description of events on Habré does not contain references to verifiable sources (publications in the media), so the neutrality, completeness and accuracy of the description of events raise questions.
Bottom line: Writing and checking out articles is not so difficult, one has only to imagine oneself a “stupid AI.” I would blame the wiki article about Habrahabr for non-neutrality, unreliability, unverifiability by purely formal criteria. (templates {{NTZ}}, {{ORISS}}, {{validity}})
Over the two years of participation in Wikipedia of varying degrees of activity (for several months I went to the ru-wiki as a job), I have developed a method of very quick assessment of the degree of compliance of the article text with the rules of the ru-wiki.
I don’t touch on spelling mistakes here, as there are so many of them on Wikipedia that you can find them in selected articles and Wikipedia rules. (Conclusion - language experts are not so often “rule boldly” as we would like).
')
For an example I will take article about Habré: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habrahabr
1) The ideal Wikipedist should not be “humane”, it is more like unerudated artificial intelligence, which is friends only with logic. In addition, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, therefore every word in a wiki article should logically follow from some other (secondary authoritative) source (publications in independent media, monographs, etc.)
2) The article, in which there are unobvious moments for "stupid AI", is ORISS (original source).
Example: How can I know that Pushkin’s name is Alexander and that he is a poet? This is written in the textbook and everything that I know about Pushkin I either learned from others or thought up myself. If I don’t tell in the article about Pushkin, from whom I learned this, it means I thought it up myself.
Some may think that I have gone mad when I demand a source for every word in the article, but this is justified by the fact that no one will write that he was "a liquid and organizer of the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy."
Example: in the “Habrahabr” article there are no references to secondary sources of information, so the whole article can be suspected of originality. I am not acquainted with Denis Kryuchkov, I do not work in Futuriko ...
3) Since our ideal is “stupid AI,” any vivid image, a living syllable, an abundance of adjectives and stylistically colored words, and other delights of a journalistic style may suggest such a violation of the rules as a “neutral point of view”.
Example: “But the vile instigator of war Hitler attacked the sacred inviolable Russia, forcing its noble leader ...” - the neutral point of view is not visible.
3a) Any text in a journalistic or artistic style in a wiki article must be reworked (at least remove adjectives :)). Without such processing, as a rule, do not achieve NTZ.
4) Verifiability. How can I know something? Only if someone tells me about it. It is not enough to indicate the sources; these sources must be verifiable.
Example: the description of events on Habré does not contain references to verifiable sources (publications in the media), so the neutrality, completeness and accuracy of the description of events raise questions.
Bottom line: Writing and checking out articles is not so difficult, one has only to imagine oneself a “stupid AI.” I would blame the wiki article about Habrahabr for non-neutrality, unreliability, unverifiability by purely formal criteria. (templates {{NTZ}}, {{ORISS}}, {{validity}})
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/25910/
All Articles