Ads
related to: wikipedia readable article checker
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A readability survey actually gives the text to real people and determines how quickly they read it and how well they understood it. Using a readability formula is quick, cheap, easy, automated, and often free way to stick a number on a text. However, the results often differ significantly from the results of a readability survey.
While upholding the goals of accuracy and neutrality, every effort should be made to also render articles accessible and pleasant to read for the broadest audience. Some editors conflate the encyclopedic style with the spare and technically precise style found in scholarly monographs and peer-reviewed papers aimed at a specialist audience.
This page on how to read an article history is intended as an aid to people who are researching with Wikipedia. Experienced Wikipedians often glean a great deal about articles from looking at the page history and following up to the individual edits that make up that history. This page describes some of these tricks of the trade.
For a few Wikipedias, the program scans newly revised articles daily, to create a new list for users, omitting already-corrected articles. A specific interface – here for the English project – facilitates correcting problems detected by the program in the following three levels of ranking priorities errors.
An important tool for evaluating a Wikipedia article is to look at its quality rating. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved, and all at different rates. Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete. Volunteers will review articles and leave a rating on the Talk page.
As Wikipedia is a work in progress, it makes no guarantee of validity. Even a featured article that has recently appeared on the main page may contain vandalism. If you need to rely on a piece of information, the only way to do so with confidence is to check the cited source and confirm that it both matches what is in the article and is reliable.
Most Wikipedia articles you'll read begin with an introduction or lead that summarizes the entire article. Articles continue with the main text or body , which summarizes parts of the topic. At the bottom of an article you will find references that show where information in the article came from, so you can check the information from the ...
And where was the fact-checker in all this -- where is the person taking the article from the editor and making sure the subject is called to verify the quote? There isn't one. And what is the meaning of "you can't just insert something without the writer's approval"? (If the article writer says "Sure, I don't care", it's OK then?)