Comments on: Quality versus age of Wikipedia’s Featured Articles http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/ because we can't think of anything wittier Tue, 21 May 2013 10:28:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Andrew http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/comment-page-1/#comment-749 Andrew Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:05:53 +0000 http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/?p=442#comment-749 On reflection, I think you may be right – there’s certainly evidence here to at least partially confirm the change-in-standards approach.

I’m still sceptical that it can be entirely explained this way, though – the absence of partially fixed articles is odd. Pity we don’t have a sample of a hundred or so!

]]> By: Спас Колев http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/comment-page-1/#comment-583 Спас Колев Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:49:35 +0000 http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/?p=442#comment-583 On the basis of Takemitsu example the “decay hypothesis” doesn’t seem very convincing – the changes are not radical and not obviously negative. It’s rather a relative decay – the article stays the same but the criteria are rising all the time.

]]>