<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_06_1917223</id>
	<title>Why Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267864920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reservoirhill" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"A new study shows that the <a href="http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1832403/who\_does\_what\_on\_wikipedia/">patterns of collaboration among Wikipedia contributors directly affect the quality of an article</a>. 'These collaboration patterns either help increase quality or are detrimental to data quality,' says Sudha Ram at the University of Arizona. Wikipedia has an internal quality rating system for entries, with featured articles at the top, followed by A, B, and C-level entries. Ram and graduate student Jun Liu randomly collected 400 articles at each quality level. 'We used data mining techniques and identified various patterns of collaboration based on the provenance or, more specifically, who does what to Wikipedia articles,' says Ram. The researchers identified <a href="http://www.indiana.edu/~wits2009/Session5b.pdf">seven specific roles that Wikipedia contributors play</a> (PDF starting on page 175): Casual Contributor, Starter, Cleaner, Copy Editor, Content Justifier, Watchdog, and All-round Editor. Starters, for example, create sentences but seldom engage in other actions. Content justifiers create sentences and justify them with resources and links. The all-round contributors perform many different functions. 'We then clustered the articles based on these roles and examined the collaboration patterns within each cluster to see what kind of quality resulted,' says Ram. 'We found that all-round contributors dominated the best-quality entries. In the entries with the lowest quality, starters and casual contributors dominated.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " A new study shows that the patterns of collaboration among Wikipedia contributors directly affect the quality of an article .
'These collaboration patterns either help increase quality or are detrimental to data quality, ' says Sudha Ram at the University of Arizona .
Wikipedia has an internal quality rating system for entries , with featured articles at the top , followed by A , B , and C-level entries .
Ram and graduate student Jun Liu randomly collected 400 articles at each quality level .
'We used data mining techniques and identified various patterns of collaboration based on the provenance or , more specifically , who does what to Wikipedia articles, ' says Ram .
The researchers identified seven specific roles that Wikipedia contributors play ( PDF starting on page 175 ) : Casual Contributor , Starter , Cleaner , Copy Editor , Content Justifier , Watchdog , and All-round Editor .
Starters , for example , create sentences but seldom engage in other actions .
Content justifiers create sentences and justify them with resources and links .
The all-round contributors perform many different functions .
'We then clustered the articles based on these roles and examined the collaboration patterns within each cluster to see what kind of quality resulted, ' says Ram .
'We found that all-round contributors dominated the best-quality entries .
In the entries with the lowest quality , starters and casual contributors dominated .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "A new study shows that the patterns of collaboration among Wikipedia contributors directly affect the quality of an article.
'These collaboration patterns either help increase quality or are detrimental to data quality,' says Sudha Ram at the University of Arizona.
Wikipedia has an internal quality rating system for entries, with featured articles at the top, followed by A, B, and C-level entries.
Ram and graduate student Jun Liu randomly collected 400 articles at each quality level.
'We used data mining techniques and identified various patterns of collaboration based on the provenance or, more specifically, who does what to Wikipedia articles,' says Ram.
The researchers identified seven specific roles that Wikipedia contributors play (PDF starting on page 175): Casual Contributor, Starter, Cleaner, Copy Editor, Content Justifier, Watchdog, and All-round Editor.
Starters, for example, create sentences but seldom engage in other actions.
Content justifiers create sentences and justify them with resources and links.
The all-round contributors perform many different functions.
'We then clustered the articles based on these roles and examined the collaboration patterns within each cluster to see what kind of quality resulted,' says Ram.
'We found that all-round contributors dominated the best-quality entries.
In the entries with the lowest quality, starters and casual contributors dominated.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385758</id>
	<title>Re:Quality</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1267889100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikipedia is great for anything involving mathematics or Star Wars.  Everything else seems kind of suspect to me.</p></div><p>Actually, I find that Wikipedia is absolutely terrible for math/science. It's fine if you're doing your thesis in the subject, but the majority of math/science articles are way beyond the comprehension of the average reader. The simple entries help, but there aren't enough of them yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is great for anything involving mathematics or Star Wars .
Everything else seems kind of suspect to me.Actually , I find that Wikipedia is absolutely terrible for math/science .
It 's fine if you 're doing your thesis in the subject , but the majority of math/science articles are way beyond the comprehension of the average reader .
The simple entries help , but there are n't enough of them yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is great for anything involving mathematics or Star Wars.
Everything else seems kind of suspect to me.Actually, I find that Wikipedia is absolutely terrible for math/science.
It's fine if you're doing your thesis in the subject, but the majority of math/science articles are way beyond the comprehension of the average reader.
The simple entries help, but there aren't enough of them yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267879320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not seek <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute\_resolution" title="wikipedia.org">dispute resolution</a> [wikipedia.org] in these cases?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not seek dispute resolution [ wikipedia.org ] in these cases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not seek dispute resolution [wikipedia.org] in these cases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383994</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Never could have guessed</i></p><p>Citation please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never could have guessedCitation please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never could have guessedCitation please</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387920</id>
	<title>Re:Quality Ratings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For me, Wikipedia makes a great starting point to learn about something, just as any single book on any given subject is a good place to *start*</p></div><p>Exactly correct. In fact, most of the time you'll do yourself a favor by just scrolling past the article and reading the citations.<br>In other cases, it's more informative to read the comments section.</p><p>My beef lately is the endless comment wars attached to sparse articles. For example, one might wish to learn more about water. You'll get a page that says something like "Water is wet [1][2][3][4][5]". The comments section will feature a 100 page edit war over whether or not "H2O" can be included due to lack of citation, and another war over the "relevance" of some aspect of water. A final edit war will be ongoing between those who feel that "Ice" should be included or have its own page, interspersed with a religious argument over how well it turns into wine. There will be dozens of ideas and factoids for expanding the entry, all of which have been shot down by one admin who is pissed off at someone else for something they said in another edit war under a different heading. Add in the usual astroturfing, and you end up with something like "Water. Some think it is wet [1][2] In modern times usage of water as a plant growth substance has been replaced [3] with Brawndo due to the electrolytes [4], which plants crave [5]".</p><p>When people send me Wiki links I want to scream. And often do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , Wikipedia makes a great starting point to learn about something , just as any single book on any given subject is a good place to * start * Exactly correct .
In fact , most of the time you 'll do yourself a favor by just scrolling past the article and reading the citations.In other cases , it 's more informative to read the comments section.My beef lately is the endless comment wars attached to sparse articles .
For example , one might wish to learn more about water .
You 'll get a page that says something like " Water is wet [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] " .
The comments section will feature a 100 page edit war over whether or not " H2O " can be included due to lack of citation , and another war over the " relevance " of some aspect of water .
A final edit war will be ongoing between those who feel that " Ice " should be included or have its own page , interspersed with a religious argument over how well it turns into wine .
There will be dozens of ideas and factoids for expanding the entry , all of which have been shot down by one admin who is pissed off at someone else for something they said in another edit war under a different heading .
Add in the usual astroturfing , and you end up with something like " Water .
Some think it is wet [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In modern times usage of water as a plant growth substance has been replaced [ 3 ] with Brawndo due to the electrolytes [ 4 ] , which plants crave [ 5 ] " .When people send me Wiki links I want to scream .
And often do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, Wikipedia makes a great starting point to learn about something, just as any single book on any given subject is a good place to *start*Exactly correct.
In fact, most of the time you'll do yourself a favor by just scrolling past the article and reading the citations.In other cases, it's more informative to read the comments section.My beef lately is the endless comment wars attached to sparse articles.
For example, one might wish to learn more about water.
You'll get a page that says something like "Water is wet [1][2][3][4][5]".
The comments section will feature a 100 page edit war over whether or not "H2O" can be included due to lack of citation, and another war over the "relevance" of some aspect of water.
A final edit war will be ongoing between those who feel that "Ice" should be included or have its own page, interspersed with a religious argument over how well it turns into wine.
There will be dozens of ideas and factoids for expanding the entry, all of which have been shot down by one admin who is pissed off at someone else for something they said in another edit war under a different heading.
Add in the usual astroturfing, and you end up with something like "Water.
Some think it is wet [1][2] In modern times usage of water as a plant growth substance has been replaced [3] with Brawndo due to the electrolytes [4], which plants crave [5]".When people send me Wiki links I want to scream.
And often do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383666</id>
	<title>Re:Missing role: deleters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/" title="dbatley.com" rel="nofollow">Deletionpedia</a> [dbatley.com] archives deleted wikipedia pages.  Unfortunately, the site is mostly not working at the moment but they do say they're continuing to archive deleted pages while they get the site up again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deletionpedia [ dbatley.com ] archives deleted wikipedia pages .
Unfortunately , the site is mostly not working at the moment but they do say they 're continuing to archive deleted pages while they get the site up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deletionpedia [dbatley.com] archives deleted wikipedia pages.
Unfortunately, the site is mostly not working at the moment but they do say they're continuing to archive deleted pages while they get the site up again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385734</id>
	<title>Don't forget the PR firms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267888740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has mentioned that PR firms ravage Wikipedia?  It's what they're paid to do.</p><p>Try editing the Fox News page sometime -- heck, Fox's PR firm even got all criticism moved to an entirely different page because it looked bad.  They earned their money, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has mentioned that PR firms ravage Wikipedia ?
It 's what they 're paid to do.Try editing the Fox News page sometime -- heck , Fox 's PR firm even got all criticism moved to an entirely different page because it looked bad .
They earned their money , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has mentioned that PR firms ravage Wikipedia?
It's what they're paid to do.Try editing the Fox News page sometime -- heck, Fox's PR firm even got all criticism moved to an entirely different page because it looked bad.
They earned their money, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386114</id>
	<title>Because anyone can edit them?</title>
	<author>sharkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267892340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it really be as <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16/" title="penny-arcade.com" rel="nofollow"> simple as that?</a> [penny-arcade.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it really be as simple as that ?
[ penny-arcade.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it really be as  simple as that?
[penny-arcade.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383914</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?</p></div><p>Various reasons I expect but ONE of them is that some of the other editors think that Wikipedia is a great place to write stuff about innocent private people without referencing it to anything. This is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - people who want to a) play at being a virtual peeping tom and b) share the dirt with the rest of the world. People you wouldn't tolerate offline but who thrive off the pseudonymity of places like Wikipedia. Thankfully there are people on Wikipedia with enough of a social conscience to clear some of that crap up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better ? Various reasons I expect but ONE of them is that some of the other editors think that Wikipedia is a great place to write stuff about innocent private people without referencing it to anything .
This is one of Wikipedia 's biggest problems - people who want to a ) play at being a virtual peeping tom and b ) share the dirt with the rest of the world .
People you would n't tolerate offline but who thrive off the pseudonymity of places like Wikipedia .
Thankfully there are people on Wikipedia with enough of a social conscience to clear some of that crap up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?Various reasons I expect but ONE of them is that some of the other editors think that Wikipedia is a great place to write stuff about innocent private people without referencing it to anything.
This is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - people who want to a) play at being a virtual peeping tom and b) share the dirt with the rest of the world.
People you wouldn't tolerate offline but who thrive off the pseudonymity of places like Wikipedia.
Thankfully there are people on Wikipedia with enough of a social conscience to clear some of that crap up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385012</id>
	<title>Why Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1267882800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality?<br> <br>My initial reaction was <i>because it's a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality ?
My initial reaction was because it 's a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality?
My initial reaction was because it's a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383928</id>
	<title>One key flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267873440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The study wasn't exactly complete. First, they only looked at Featured quality articles, A-class, B-class, and C-class. They totally neglected <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good\_articles" title="wikipedia.org">GA-class</a> [wikipedia.org], of which there are currently over 8,000 of those. Secondly, FA-class and GA-class are handled differently than A, B, and C-classes. FA and GA are Wikipedia-wide assessment systems, with specific criteria that must be adhered to in order for articles to get listed there. FA is pretty rigorous, and only the best of the best get through after having been nitpicked, often far too much (yes, stupid crap like commas and en-dashes). GA is a bit less rigorous, with a review by only one editor being required for listing. And yes, this one editor system has been criticized in the past; though there is a GA reassessment system, and the community has gone through a pretty thorough system of GA sweeps, getting rid of some of the older GAs that were passed before the current criteria were enforced better.<p>

A, B, and C-class assessments are not Wikipedia-wide. They are assessed by individual Wikiprojects (of which there are literally hundreds of these). And each Wikiproject has their own standard of what it considers A, B, and C. Some Wikiprojects are much easier, others are more rigorous (like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject\_Military\_history" title="wikipedia.org">WikiProject Military history</a> [wikipedia.org]). Furthermore, C-class is relatively new, having been created just within the past two years or so; so there's probably still a lot of B-class articles that should be C-class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The study was n't exactly complete .
First , they only looked at Featured quality articles , A-class , B-class , and C-class .
They totally neglected GA-class [ wikipedia.org ] , of which there are currently over 8,000 of those .
Secondly , FA-class and GA-class are handled differently than A , B , and C-classes .
FA and GA are Wikipedia-wide assessment systems , with specific criteria that must be adhered to in order for articles to get listed there .
FA is pretty rigorous , and only the best of the best get through after having been nitpicked , often far too much ( yes , stupid crap like commas and en-dashes ) .
GA is a bit less rigorous , with a review by only one editor being required for listing .
And yes , this one editor system has been criticized in the past ; though there is a GA reassessment system , and the community has gone through a pretty thorough system of GA sweeps , getting rid of some of the older GAs that were passed before the current criteria were enforced better .
A , B , and C-class assessments are not Wikipedia-wide .
They are assessed by individual Wikiprojects ( of which there are literally hundreds of these ) .
And each Wikiproject has their own standard of what it considers A , B , and C. Some Wikiprojects are much easier , others are more rigorous ( like WikiProject Military history [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Furthermore , C-class is relatively new , having been created just within the past two years or so ; so there 's probably still a lot of B-class articles that should be C-class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study wasn't exactly complete.
First, they only looked at Featured quality articles, A-class, B-class, and C-class.
They totally neglected GA-class [wikipedia.org], of which there are currently over 8,000 of those.
Secondly, FA-class and GA-class are handled differently than A, B, and C-classes.
FA and GA are Wikipedia-wide assessment systems, with specific criteria that must be adhered to in order for articles to get listed there.
FA is pretty rigorous, and only the best of the best get through after having been nitpicked, often far too much (yes, stupid crap like commas and en-dashes).
GA is a bit less rigorous, with a review by only one editor being required for listing.
And yes, this one editor system has been criticized in the past; though there is a GA reassessment system, and the community has gone through a pretty thorough system of GA sweeps, getting rid of some of the older GAs that were passed before the current criteria were enforced better.
A, B, and C-class assessments are not Wikipedia-wide.
They are assessed by individual Wikiprojects (of which there are literally hundreds of these).
And each Wikiproject has their own standard of what it considers A, B, and C. Some Wikiprojects are much easier, others are more rigorous (like WikiProject Military history [wikipedia.org]).
Furthermore, C-class is relatively new, having been created just within the past two years or so; so there's probably still a lot of B-class articles that should be C-class.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383282</id>
	<title>Oh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267868700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always figured that some of the articles were poor because they were written by Americans, rather than much more intelligent Europeans or Asians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always figured that some of the articles were poor because they were written by Americans , rather than much more intelligent Europeans or Asians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always figured that some of the articles were poor because they were written by Americans, rather than much more intelligent Europeans or Asians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384270</id>
	<title>Re:Quality Ratings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267876260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote a wikipedia article once. It was on a subject I have passing knowledge of, plus an academic paper on it. I took a slight editorial position, based more on how I presented the facts than on an obvious bias to someone who didn't know the topic, but the content was entirely factual. I looked at it recently (a few years later). It had been touched by several all-round editors.</p><p>By deleting some of the material they had removed my bias. They had also reworded things, to the extent that they had inadvertently changed the meaning and it was no longer factually correct. They hadn't inserted any citations (say, to the paper I had combined with my experience to write the original article). I left it as is.</p><p>I consider wikipedia editors to be destroyers of knowledge, and I still use wikipedia, but I don't ever expect it to do better than mostly right, most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote a wikipedia article once .
It was on a subject I have passing knowledge of , plus an academic paper on it .
I took a slight editorial position , based more on how I presented the facts than on an obvious bias to someone who did n't know the topic , but the content was entirely factual .
I looked at it recently ( a few years later ) .
It had been touched by several all-round editors.By deleting some of the material they had removed my bias .
They had also reworded things , to the extent that they had inadvertently changed the meaning and it was no longer factually correct .
They had n't inserted any citations ( say , to the paper I had combined with my experience to write the original article ) .
I left it as is.I consider wikipedia editors to be destroyers of knowledge , and I still use wikipedia , but I do n't ever expect it to do better than mostly right , most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote a wikipedia article once.
It was on a subject I have passing knowledge of, plus an academic paper on it.
I took a slight editorial position, based more on how I presented the facts than on an obvious bias to someone who didn't know the topic, but the content was entirely factual.
I looked at it recently (a few years later).
It had been touched by several all-round editors.By deleting some of the material they had removed my bias.
They had also reworded things, to the extent that they had inadvertently changed the meaning and it was no longer factually correct.
They hadn't inserted any citations (say, to the paper I had combined with my experience to write the original article).
I left it as is.I consider wikipedia editors to be destroyers of knowledge, and I still use wikipedia, but I don't ever expect it to do better than mostly right, most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388814</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1267971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because most of us are not wiki-fucking-lawyers and don't give a flying monkeys about the ridiculous accretion of bullshit the project has built up over the years.  Engage in "dispute resolution" with some asshat that you know is wrong over some tedious bullshit point that noone really cares about?  Sorry, I have more interesting things to do, like stick my genitals in a mechanical cheesegrater.  At least it would give me something to talk about at parties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because most of us are not wiki-fucking-lawyers and do n't give a flying monkeys about the ridiculous accretion of bullshit the project has built up over the years .
Engage in " dispute resolution " with some asshat that you know is wrong over some tedious bullshit point that noone really cares about ?
Sorry , I have more interesting things to do , like stick my genitals in a mechanical cheesegrater .
At least it would give me something to talk about at parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because most of us are not wiki-fucking-lawyers and don't give a flying monkeys about the ridiculous accretion of bullshit the project has built up over the years.
Engage in "dispute resolution" with some asshat that you know is wrong over some tedious bullshit point that noone really cares about?
Sorry, I have more interesting things to do, like stick my genitals in a mechanical cheesegrater.
At least it would give me something to talk about at parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388178</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267963680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AC who posted this is a clever troll.</p><p>The idiots who replied don't seem to understand that 2009 can be both in the past and in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AC who posted this is a clever troll.The idiots who replied do n't seem to understand that 2009 can be both in the past and in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AC who posted this is a clever troll.The idiots who replied don't seem to understand that 2009 can be both in the past and in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384238</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267875900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you allow random people to write and edit articles, and the result is a wide variation in their quality?</p><p>Next week, can we have a paper explaining the defecation habits of bears?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you allow random people to write and edit articles , and the result is a wide variation in their quality ? Next week , can we have a paper explaining the defecation habits of bears ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you allow random people to write and edit articles, and the result is a wide variation in their quality?Next week, can we have a paper explaining the defecation habits of bears?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386168</id>
	<title>In increasing quality order: B, GA, A, FA</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267893060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They totally neglected GA-class [...] A, B, and C-class assessments are not Wikipedia-wide</p></div><p>But what WikiProjects' assessment criteria have in common is that B is below GA and A is between GA and FA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They totally neglected GA-class [ ... ] A , B , and C-class assessments are not Wikipedia-wideBut what WikiProjects ' assessment criteria have in common is that B is below GA and A is between GA and FA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They totally neglected GA-class [...] A, B, and C-class assessments are not Wikipedia-wideBut what WikiProjects' assessment criteria have in common is that B is below GA and A is between GA and FA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383492</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the article seems to be just stating the obvious.</p><p>"casual contributor" is defined, apparently, a somebody who adds text, but not citations or links.  An "A" quality article is defined as one, among other things, incorporating a lot of citations and links.  Surprise, the casual contributors mostly contribute to articles that aren't "A" quality!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the article seems to be just stating the obvious .
" casual contributor " is defined , apparently , a somebody who adds text , but not citations or links .
An " A " quality article is defined as one , among other things , incorporating a lot of citations and links .
Surprise , the casual contributors mostly contribute to articles that are n't " A " quality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the article seems to be just stating the obvious.
"casual contributor" is defined, apparently, a somebody who adds text, but not citations or links.
An "A" quality article is defined as one, among other things, incorporating a lot of citations and links.
Surprise, the casual contributors mostly contribute to articles that aren't "A" quality!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385020</id>
	<title>the problem with wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267882860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really gets me about wikipedia is stuff like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles\_for\_deletion/I\_Am\_Rich" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">I Am Rich</a> [wikipedia.org]. Nominated for deletion, the consensus wound up being to keep it. Not to redirect it but to keep it. Then, the nominator, having failed in his attempt to delete it, merges it, despite consensus to the contrary, into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:App\_Store#I\_Am\_Rich\_merge\_suggestion" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">App Store</a> [wikipedia.org]. Later, another user comes along and deletes it, saying it's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=App\_Store&amp;diff=238484696&amp;oldid=237711348" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">not important</a> [wikipedia.org]".</p><p>But wait - it gets better! The same guy nominates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles\_for\_deletion/Heavy\_Metal\_(Terminator:\_The\_Sarah\_Connor\_Chronicles)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)</a> [wikipedia.org] for deletion and fails in his attempt. So what does he do? Merges every episode, save that one, into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List\_of\_Terminator:\_The\_Sarah\_Connor\_Chronicles\_episodes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes</a> [wikipedia.org]. You see - this user knows he couldn't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.</p><p>It's interesting to note that this same user also completely and wantonly disregards the rules.  When a vote to delete an article has concluded, you're not supposed to edit it, anymore, and yet <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles\_for\_deletion/Habari\_(3rd\_nomination)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">they do it</a> [wikipedia.org] and get away scott free with it.</p><p>Of course, none of this tops <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torchic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Torchic</a> [wikipedia.org]. A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon, with 2-3 paragraphs (depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts) and no citations. Amazing stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What really gets me about wikipedia is stuff like I Am Rich [ wikipedia.org ] .
Nominated for deletion , the consensus wound up being to keep it .
Not to redirect it but to keep it .
Then , the nominator , having failed in his attempt to delete it , merges it , despite consensus to the contrary , into App Store [ wikipedia.org ] .
Later , another user comes along and deletes it , saying it 's " not important [ wikipedia.org ] " .But wait - it gets better !
The same guy nominates Heavy Metal ( Terminator : The Sarah Connor Chronicles ) [ wikipedia.org ] for deletion and fails in his attempt .
So what does he do ?
Merges every episode , save that one , into List of Terminator : The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes [ wikipedia.org ] .
You see - this user knows he could n't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.It 's interesting to note that this same user also completely and wantonly disregards the rules .
When a vote to delete an article has concluded , you 're not supposed to edit it , anymore , and yet they do it [ wikipedia.org ] and get away scott free with it.Of course , none of this tops Torchic [ wikipedia.org ] .
A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon , with 2-3 paragraphs ( depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts ) and no citations .
Amazing stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really gets me about wikipedia is stuff like I Am Rich [wikipedia.org].
Nominated for deletion, the consensus wound up being to keep it.
Not to redirect it but to keep it.
Then, the nominator, having failed in his attempt to delete it, merges it, despite consensus to the contrary, into App Store [wikipedia.org].
Later, another user comes along and deletes it, saying it's "not important [wikipedia.org]".But wait - it gets better!
The same guy nominates Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) [wikipedia.org] for deletion and fails in his attempt.
So what does he do?
Merges every episode, save that one, into List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes [wikipedia.org].
You see - this user knows he couldn't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.It's interesting to note that this same user also completely and wantonly disregards the rules.
When a vote to delete an article has concluded, you're not supposed to edit it, anymore, and yet they do it [wikipedia.org] and get away scott free with it.Of course, none of this tops Torchic [wikipedia.org].
A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon, with 2-3 paragraphs (depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts) and no citations.
Amazing stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31390386</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because he probably has a life and wants to read information instead of fight the childish politics of wiki editors and admins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because he probably has a life and wants to read information instead of fight the childish politics of wiki editors and admins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because he probably has a life and wants to read information instead of fight the childish politics of wiki editors and admins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31397570</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>erikvcl</author>
	<datestamp>1267986000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why is water wet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why is water wet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is water wet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383902</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267873320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might think this is obvious, but any Slashdot article on Wikipedia inevitably includes lots of comments saying "My drive-by edit was reverted and I'm never contributing again and Wikipedia is dying." Lots of people on Slashdot do seem to think that an agglomeration of off-the-cuff edits could somehow produce quality articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might think this is obvious , but any Slashdot article on Wikipedia inevitably includes lots of comments saying " My drive-by edit was reverted and I 'm never contributing again and Wikipedia is dying .
" Lots of people on Slashdot do seem to think that an agglomeration of off-the-cuff edits could somehow produce quality articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might think this is obvious, but any Slashdot article on Wikipedia inevitably includes lots of comments saying "My drive-by edit was reverted and I'm never contributing again and Wikipedia is dying.
" Lots of people on Slashdot do seem to think that an agglomeration of off-the-cuff edits could somehow produce quality articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383576</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1267870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In January 2010, Apple announced the iPad.<br>The iPad is a tablet form factor computer due to be released in 2010.</p><p>Within one line of each other, one post is talking about the past tense in 2010 and the future tense in 2010... Oh, the horror!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In January 2010 , Apple announced the iPad.The iPad is a tablet form factor computer due to be released in 2010.Within one line of each other , one post is talking about the past tense in 2010 and the future tense in 2010... Oh , the horror !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In January 2010, Apple announced the iPad.The iPad is a tablet form factor computer due to be released in 2010.Within one line of each other, one post is talking about the past tense in 2010 and the future tense in 2010... Oh, the horror!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387432</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1267994700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a couple people have pointed out, it is very difficult in some cases to get anything done. I've run into plenty of articles where some people will guard them religiously and even if there are issues on the page, any maintenance tag is immediately reverted, people are insulted, and even if 10 people showed up to claim the maintenance tag was necessary they'd fight tooth and nail until blocked, and unblocked only to continue.</p><p>These people were viewed as "good" editors. Which meant dealing with them pointless. Dispute resolution is a broken process. You take something to AN/I, they insist on an RfC. Which is a known waste of time. Why? Well, they know if things get lost in RfC land there isn't a hope that their buddy will get in trouble.</p><p>All dispute resolution is is an attempt to tire the complaining side out so that no one actually has to solve the problem.</p><p>The amount of admins around there who will absolutely coddle someone to death is ludicrous. They would rather chase someone away from the project than have a "good" editor have to come clean for their behaviour.</p><p>It can take years to finally get problem users outed, and then have them turn around and sneak back in when no one is looking..<br>There are several users there who are basically standing on the bodies of users they've chased away from the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a couple people have pointed out , it is very difficult in some cases to get anything done .
I 've run into plenty of articles where some people will guard them religiously and even if there are issues on the page , any maintenance tag is immediately reverted , people are insulted , and even if 10 people showed up to claim the maintenance tag was necessary they 'd fight tooth and nail until blocked , and unblocked only to continue.These people were viewed as " good " editors .
Which meant dealing with them pointless .
Dispute resolution is a broken process .
You take something to AN/I , they insist on an RfC .
Which is a known waste of time .
Why ? Well , they know if things get lost in RfC land there is n't a hope that their buddy will get in trouble.All dispute resolution is is an attempt to tire the complaining side out so that no one actually has to solve the problem.The amount of admins around there who will absolutely coddle someone to death is ludicrous .
They would rather chase someone away from the project than have a " good " editor have to come clean for their behaviour.It can take years to finally get problem users outed , and then have them turn around and sneak back in when no one is looking..There are several users there who are basically standing on the bodies of users they 've chased away from the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a couple people have pointed out, it is very difficult in some cases to get anything done.
I've run into plenty of articles where some people will guard them religiously and even if there are issues on the page, any maintenance tag is immediately reverted, people are insulted, and even if 10 people showed up to claim the maintenance tag was necessary they'd fight tooth and nail until blocked, and unblocked only to continue.These people were viewed as "good" editors.
Which meant dealing with them pointless.
Dispute resolution is a broken process.
You take something to AN/I, they insist on an RfC.
Which is a known waste of time.
Why? Well, they know if things get lost in RfC land there isn't a hope that their buddy will get in trouble.All dispute resolution is is an attempt to tire the complaining side out so that no one actually has to solve the problem.The amount of admins around there who will absolutely coddle someone to death is ludicrous.
They would rather chase someone away from the project than have a "good" editor have to come clean for their behaviour.It can take years to finally get problem users outed, and then have them turn around and sneak back in when no one is looking..There are several users there who are basically standing on the bodies of users they've chased away from the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385832</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1267889820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's funny, some comments in here complain that many articles have gotten stale and aren't well-maintained. Others, like yours, complain that there aren't enough articles. These two complaints are at odds with each other - a fixed number of editors can either maintain a smaller, more important set of articles, or can devote their time to starting and watching new articles.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't have a fixed number of editors.</p><p>I used to edit, but the deletions and the policy douchebaggery drove me away. So the "not enough articles" and "stale articles" problems are arguably both the result of the same "policies driving people away" issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , some comments in here complain that many articles have gotten stale and are n't well-maintained .
Others , like yours , complain that there are n't enough articles .
These two complaints are at odds with each other - a fixed number of editors can either maintain a smaller , more important set of articles , or can devote their time to starting and watching new articles.Yes , but Wikipedia does n't have a fixed number of editors.I used to edit , but the deletions and the policy douchebaggery drove me away .
So the " not enough articles " and " stale articles " problems are arguably both the result of the same " policies driving people away " issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, some comments in here complain that many articles have gotten stale and aren't well-maintained.
Others, like yours, complain that there aren't enough articles.
These two complaints are at odds with each other - a fixed number of editors can either maintain a smaller, more important set of articles, or can devote their time to starting and watching new articles.Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't have a fixed number of editors.I used to edit, but the deletions and the policy douchebaggery drove me away.
So the "not enough articles" and "stale articles" problems are arguably both the result of the same "policies driving people away" issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383618</id>
	<title>is very nice</title>
	<author>dafid</author>
	<datestamp>1267871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>your artikel is very usefull for me.thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>your artikel is very usefull for me.thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your artikel is very usefull for me.thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388798</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Must Be Destroyed</title>
	<author>jonathansamuel2</author>
	<datestamp>1267971780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an effort by Neo-Nazis to rebrand themselves and their ideology as "National Socialism." Several Wikipedia admins have been taking the side of these nutcases over at the Wikipedia article on Nazi Party member and noted philosopher Martin Heidegger (which is currently frozen.) A number of editors have insisted that Heidegger be referred to only as "National Socialist" and not as "Nazi."
</p><p>
Some of these Wikipedia admins don't even read the Talk Page. They just jump right in and take action.
</p><p>
The action of ignorant Wikipedia admins over at the Heidegger article made me realize that the world would be better off if there were no Wikipedia. I hope it goes the way of AOL and Computerland computer stores. And as far as Google giving Wikipedia $2M recently, SHAME ON GOOGLE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an effort by Neo-Nazis to rebrand themselves and their ideology as " National Socialism .
" Several Wikipedia admins have been taking the side of these nutcases over at the Wikipedia article on Nazi Party member and noted philosopher Martin Heidegger ( which is currently frozen .
) A number of editors have insisted that Heidegger be referred to only as " National Socialist " and not as " Nazi .
" Some of these Wikipedia admins do n't even read the Talk Page .
They just jump right in and take action .
The action of ignorant Wikipedia admins over at the Heidegger article made me realize that the world would be better off if there were no Wikipedia .
I hope it goes the way of AOL and Computerland computer stores .
And as far as Google giving Wikipedia $ 2M recently , SHAME ON GOOGLE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an effort by Neo-Nazis to rebrand themselves and their ideology as "National Socialism.
" Several Wikipedia admins have been taking the side of these nutcases over at the Wikipedia article on Nazi Party member and noted philosopher Martin Heidegger (which is currently frozen.
) A number of editors have insisted that Heidegger be referred to only as "National Socialist" and not as "Nazi.
"

Some of these Wikipedia admins don't even read the Talk Page.
They just jump right in and take action.
The action of ignorant Wikipedia admins over at the Heidegger article made me realize that the world would be better off if there were no Wikipedia.
I hope it goes the way of AOL and Computerland computer stores.
And as far as Google giving Wikipedia $2M recently, SHAME ON GOOGLE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384030</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Zorque</author>
	<datestamp>1267874280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That, or articles written by people with the most hours logged writing fanfiction about the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , or articles written by people with the most hours logged writing fanfiction about the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, or articles written by people with the most hours logged writing fanfiction about the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383468</id>
	<title>Quality Ratings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267870140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there may be a possible flaw in using Wikipedia's internal quality rating.  It measures adherence to wikipedia standards... but that may not necessarily be the same thing as actual quality.<br> <br>

In that scheme, excellent articles with posters who tend to brush up against some of wikipedia's more picky guidelines, would be rated lower.  It's minor, because in general wikipedia's guidelines are there to make better articles, but it sometimes happens.<br> <br>

It's like defining intelligence as the ability to do well on intelligence tests.  It's certainly related, and there's not much of a better alternative, but you have to remember you aren't measuring the trait directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there may be a possible flaw in using Wikipedia 's internal quality rating .
It measures adherence to wikipedia standards... but that may not necessarily be the same thing as actual quality .
In that scheme , excellent articles with posters who tend to brush up against some of wikipedia 's more picky guidelines , would be rated lower .
It 's minor , because in general wikipedia 's guidelines are there to make better articles , but it sometimes happens .
It 's like defining intelligence as the ability to do well on intelligence tests .
It 's certainly related , and there 's not much of a better alternative , but you have to remember you are n't measuring the trait directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there may be a possible flaw in using Wikipedia's internal quality rating.
It measures adherence to wikipedia standards... but that may not necessarily be the same thing as actual quality.
In that scheme, excellent articles with posters who tend to brush up against some of wikipedia's more picky guidelines, would be rated lower.
It's minor, because in general wikipedia's guidelines are there to make better articles, but it sometimes happens.
It's like defining intelligence as the ability to do well on intelligence tests.
It's certainly related, and there's not much of a better alternative, but you have to remember you aren't measuring the trait directly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384736</id>
	<title>Re:Missing role: deleters</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267880280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I just browsed through the list of articles proposed for deletion on Wikipedia. A lot of it, I'd say about 70\% or so was articles about people or bands/albums/songs to be deleted on notability grounds. The rest were a mixed bag of general cleanup. The question is, notable compared to what? I can assure you that of all the samples I looked at, none would have qualified for an encyclopedia entry. None were anyone I'd be surprised to find missing.</p><p>I think if you want to include people of less notability, you have to just not have a notability criteria. FIDE has a list of 100,000 chess players? Sure whatever, drop them in. I want to add my elementary school class, drop them in. If I just want to list people out of the phone book living in my area, drop them in. If I want to add my whole family of obscure people from my genealogy project, drop them in. Every person that's played a sport at any level where they bothered taking names, drop them in. Every person ever mentioned in any news paper article or failed the first round of idol tryouts, drop them in. Maybe that'll be useful, maybe it'll just be a tangled mess of weird information, duplicate entries of same person or entries mixing up several people with the same name, shameless self-promotion, vandalism and harassment. I guess it's worth a try, I'm just not sure wikipedia is the place to try it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I just browsed through the list of articles proposed for deletion on Wikipedia .
A lot of it , I 'd say about 70 \ % or so was articles about people or bands/albums/songs to be deleted on notability grounds .
The rest were a mixed bag of general cleanup .
The question is , notable compared to what ?
I can assure you that of all the samples I looked at , none would have qualified for an encyclopedia entry .
None were anyone I 'd be surprised to find missing.I think if you want to include people of less notability , you have to just not have a notability criteria .
FIDE has a list of 100,000 chess players ?
Sure whatever , drop them in .
I want to add my elementary school class , drop them in .
If I just want to list people out of the phone book living in my area , drop them in .
If I want to add my whole family of obscure people from my genealogy project , drop them in .
Every person that 's played a sport at any level where they bothered taking names , drop them in .
Every person ever mentioned in any news paper article or failed the first round of idol tryouts , drop them in .
Maybe that 'll be useful , maybe it 'll just be a tangled mess of weird information , duplicate entries of same person or entries mixing up several people with the same name , shameless self-promotion , vandalism and harassment .
I guess it 's worth a try , I 'm just not sure wikipedia is the place to try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I just browsed through the list of articles proposed for deletion on Wikipedia.
A lot of it, I'd say about 70\% or so was articles about people or bands/albums/songs to be deleted on notability grounds.
The rest were a mixed bag of general cleanup.
The question is, notable compared to what?
I can assure you that of all the samples I looked at, none would have qualified for an encyclopedia entry.
None were anyone I'd be surprised to find missing.I think if you want to include people of less notability, you have to just not have a notability criteria.
FIDE has a list of 100,000 chess players?
Sure whatever, drop them in.
I want to add my elementary school class, drop them in.
If I just want to list people out of the phone book living in my area, drop them in.
If I want to add my whole family of obscure people from my genealogy project, drop them in.
Every person that's played a sport at any level where they bothered taking names, drop them in.
Every person ever mentioned in any news paper article or failed the first round of idol tryouts, drop them in.
Maybe that'll be useful, maybe it'll just be a tangled mess of weird information, duplicate entries of same person or entries mixing up several people with the same name, shameless self-promotion, vandalism and harassment.
I guess it's worth a try, I'm just not sure wikipedia is the place to try it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387628</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1267954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you're doing it wrong. All these things could be improved by having:</p><p>1. Stable article revisions, which would contain merges of useful information from the unstable versions. The length of cycle should roughly depend on how many contributors are there in the article.</p><p>2. Notability score for articles (say, from 1 - the best of 100 - to 8 - non-notable) and ability to filter categories by these (and maybe, having articles with different notability score in different namespace, so they could be recognized from the link). Another good improvement would be a 2 levels of notability - general notability in the world, and the notability within the specific culture, for example, notability of something Star Trek with respect to Star Trek universe.</p><p>3. Notification about articles with many changes and low number of watchers.</p><p>4. Liquid thread system.</p><p>5. Maybe a special page for matching unsourced claims and sources. One type of people would write-up the claims, another type - experts presumably - would provide citations, and yet another editors could merge these into the article itself. By division of labour, lot of work could be saved.</p><p>This way, encyclopedia of any size could be managed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you 're doing it wrong .
All these things could be improved by having : 1 .
Stable article revisions , which would contain merges of useful information from the unstable versions .
The length of cycle should roughly depend on how many contributors are there in the article.2 .
Notability score for articles ( say , from 1 - the best of 100 - to 8 - non-notable ) and ability to filter categories by these ( and maybe , having articles with different notability score in different namespace , so they could be recognized from the link ) .
Another good improvement would be a 2 levels of notability - general notability in the world , and the notability within the specific culture , for example , notability of something Star Trek with respect to Star Trek universe.3 .
Notification about articles with many changes and low number of watchers.4 .
Liquid thread system.5 .
Maybe a special page for matching unsourced claims and sources .
One type of people would write-up the claims , another type - experts presumably - would provide citations , and yet another editors could merge these into the article itself .
By division of labour , lot of work could be saved.This way , encyclopedia of any size could be managed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you're doing it wrong.
All these things could be improved by having:1.
Stable article revisions, which would contain merges of useful information from the unstable versions.
The length of cycle should roughly depend on how many contributors are there in the article.2.
Notability score for articles (say, from 1 - the best of 100 - to 8 - non-notable) and ability to filter categories by these (and maybe, having articles with different notability score in different namespace, so they could be recognized from the link).
Another good improvement would be a 2 levels of notability - general notability in the world, and the notability within the specific culture, for example, notability of something Star Trek with respect to Star Trek universe.3.
Notification about articles with many changes and low number of watchers.4.
Liquid thread system.5.
Maybe a special page for matching unsourced claims and sources.
One type of people would write-up the claims, another type - experts presumably - would provide citations, and yet another editors could merge these into the article itself.
By division of labour, lot of work could be saved.This way, encyclopedia of any size could be managed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383748</id>
	<title>Less deletion</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1267872300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm with the rest who say too many articles are being deleted. Several times I've been able to, or thought I was able to, find an article on a subject I was wanting information on. Then all I get is a deleted page, with no way to see what was deleted, and about as much clarity as to why it was deleted. At least send me to the page where you explain and quote why and what you deleted.</p><p>Preferably if you have more knowledge on the subject, write a better article and put up that as a replacement. Empty pages benefit no one. And no, there aren't any subjects too small. If they are too small for their own page, put them together with whatever else they belong, and point me to that material when you delete the former main article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with the rest who say too many articles are being deleted .
Several times I 've been able to , or thought I was able to , find an article on a subject I was wanting information on .
Then all I get is a deleted page , with no way to see what was deleted , and about as much clarity as to why it was deleted .
At least send me to the page where you explain and quote why and what you deleted.Preferably if you have more knowledge on the subject , write a better article and put up that as a replacement .
Empty pages benefit no one .
And no , there are n't any subjects too small .
If they are too small for their own page , put them together with whatever else they belong , and point me to that material when you delete the former main article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with the rest who say too many articles are being deleted.
Several times I've been able to, or thought I was able to, find an article on a subject I was wanting information on.
Then all I get is a deleted page, with no way to see what was deleted, and about as much clarity as to why it was deleted.
At least send me to the page where you explain and quote why and what you deleted.Preferably if you have more knowledge on the subject, write a better article and put up that as a replacement.
Empty pages benefit no one.
And no, there aren't any subjects too small.
If they are too small for their own page, put them together with whatever else they belong, and point me to that material when you delete the former main article.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383494</id>
	<title>Because different people write the entries?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1267870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen some shocking entries, but I can't commit to spending the 20 hours or so it'd take to write a new, decent article from scratch.  I guess some people can't tell that the articles suck and go ahead and quote them or whatever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen some shocking entries , but I ca n't commit to spending the 20 hours or so it 'd take to write a new , decent article from scratch .
I guess some people ca n't tell that the articles suck and go ahead and quote them or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen some shocking entries, but I can't commit to spending the 20 hours or so it'd take to write a new, decent article from scratch.
I guess some people can't tell that the articles suck and go ahead and quote them or whatever.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387758</id>
	<title>Almost get your wish</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1267956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can see non-editable versions of deleted pages at <a href="http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main\_Page" title="dbatley.com" rel="nofollow">Deletionpedia</a> [dbatley.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can see non-editable versions of deleted pages at Deletionpedia [ dbatley.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can see non-editable versions of deleted pages at Deletionpedia [dbatley.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384014</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267874160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?</p></div><p>That policy is a brain-turd of some moron who doesn't think properly (The Notability Policy). It's born of the fact that a traditional encyclopaedia is on paper, paper costs money which restricts the size so you can't include <em>everything</em>. Whilst Wikipedia does still have storage, bandwidth and power costs, those are way less then a printed encyclopaedia yet they still feel they need this shit [probably as some sort of "legitimacy" crutch].</p><p>To be clear, deleting articles by some nobody who wrote about themselves (Save your Facebook crap for Farcebook itself, thanks) is fine but impersonal topics and trivia like obscure TV shows and other junk <em>should</em> be fair game, even if only a few hundred people have even heard of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better ? That policy is a brain-turd of some moron who does n't think properly ( The Notability Policy ) .
It 's born of the fact that a traditional encyclopaedia is on paper , paper costs money which restricts the size so you ca n't include everything .
Whilst Wikipedia does still have storage , bandwidth and power costs , those are way less then a printed encyclopaedia yet they still feel they need this shit [ probably as some sort of " legitimacy " crutch ] .To be clear , deleting articles by some nobody who wrote about themselves ( Save your Facebook crap for Farcebook itself , thanks ) is fine but impersonal topics and trivia like obscure TV shows and other junk should be fair game , even if only a few hundred people have even heard of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?That policy is a brain-turd of some moron who doesn't think properly (The Notability Policy).
It's born of the fact that a traditional encyclopaedia is on paper, paper costs money which restricts the size so you can't include everything.
Whilst Wikipedia does still have storage, bandwidth and power costs, those are way less then a printed encyclopaedia yet they still feel they need this shit [probably as some sort of "legitimacy" crutch].To be clear, deleting articles by some nobody who wrote about themselves (Save your Facebook crap for Farcebook itself, thanks) is fine but impersonal topics and trivia like obscure TV shows and other junk should be fair game, even if only a few hundred people have even heard of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383648</id>
	<title>"Study"</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267871400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It sounds like articles cared for by people that stick around turn out better than ones edited by drive-by people, eh?
</p><p>
Interesting and all, but you know, this sorta studies get cited to support all kindsa wackjob social "theories", don't they?  I mean, citing such studies are deemed "rigor" and whatnot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like articles cared for by people that stick around turn out better than ones edited by drive-by people , eh ?
Interesting and all , but you know , this sorta studies get cited to support all kindsa wackjob social " theories " , do n't they ?
I mean , citing such studies are deemed " rigor " and whatnot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It sounds like articles cared for by people that stick around turn out better than ones edited by drive-by people, eh?
Interesting and all, but you know, this sorta studies get cited to support all kindsa wackjob social "theories", don't they?
I mean, citing such studies are deemed "rigor" and whatnot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616</id>
	<title>Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the main problem with Wikipedia is it went from "an encyclopedia where you -might- find something of interest" to "a place you can find anything!" to now "a place where you can possibly find some things but if we don't like it, it gets deleted and we don't want your help unless you feel like reading 22342342343 policies, follow them exactly and patrol "your" page constantly". Seriously, Wikipedia 2-3 years ago was a lot better than Wikipedia now. Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better? Especially since Wikipedia is online and a few new articles don't translate to (much) extra load?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main problem with Wikipedia is it went from " an encyclopedia where you -might- find something of interest " to " a place you can find anything !
" to now " a place where you can possibly find some things but if we do n't like it , it gets deleted and we do n't want your help unless you feel like reading 22342342343 policies , follow them exactly and patrol " your " page constantly " .
Seriously , Wikipedia 2-3 years ago was a lot better than Wikipedia now .
Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better ?
Especially since Wikipedia is online and a few new articles do n't translate to ( much ) extra load ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main problem with Wikipedia is it went from "an encyclopedia where you -might- find something of interest" to "a place you can find anything!
" to now "a place where you can possibly find some things but if we don't like it, it gets deleted and we don't want your help unless you feel like reading 22342342343 policies, follow them exactly and patrol "your" page constantly".
Seriously, Wikipedia 2-3 years ago was a lot better than Wikipedia now.
Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?
Especially since Wikipedia is online and a few new articles don't translate to (much) extra load?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31395358</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I don't have the weeks or months it takes to work through that byzantine procedure.  Nor do I have any desire to do so, because it favors the 'side' with the most time on its hands and the most sockpuppets at its beck and call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I do n't have the weeks or months it takes to work through that byzantine procedure .
Nor do I have any desire to do so , because it favors the 'side ' with the most time on its hands and the most sockpuppets at its beck and call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I don't have the weeks or months it takes to work through that byzantine procedure.
Nor do I have any desire to do so, because it favors the 'side' with the most time on its hands and the most sockpuppets at its beck and call.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386464</id>
	<title>Why delete anything?</title>
	<author>thenextstevejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1267896540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't fathom why there can't be an article for every sequence of characters. Would seem to be more informative that way. If 'iagonwoanrboarno' doesn't mean anything, it'll simply be a shorter article, and I probably will never see it anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't fathom why there ca n't be an article for every sequence of characters .
Would seem to be more informative that way .
If 'iagonwoanrboarno ' does n't mean anything , it 'll simply be a shorter article , and I probably will never see it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't fathom why there can't be an article for every sequence of characters.
Would seem to be more informative that way.
If 'iagonwoanrboarno' doesn't mean anything, it'll simply be a shorter article, and I probably will never see it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387160</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't speak for QuietLagoon, but I'm an IP user who just makes casual edits to improve things where I can, particularly in fields where I know enough independently to spot misleading half-truths (IMO the really dangerous stuff, not completely bogus articles or endless grammar-fixage). I simply don't have the inclination to go through dispute resolution -- I'm doing my part to give back to the resources I use, same as I will occasionally pick up a piece of trash that's not really my problem to keep the workplace nicer. In neither case will I go to extraordinary efforts, but I'm alright with going a little bit out of my way when I'm not in a hurry. Fighting someone who owns an article simply doesn't fit that type/level of contribution.</p><p>Additionally, the entire system is biased in favor of people who own articles, and have the time to maintain that "ownership" -- for better or worse, they end up looking more like valuable contributors, and a casual editor like me looks more like a casual vandal, or at best a good-hearted person with all the encyclopedic skills of your average youtube commenter. Actually telling whether my edit in some technical article is good or not requires a certain level of familiarity with that subject, which is invariably in much shorter supply than familiarity with wikipedia, so when there is a dispute, it gets settled on the "he's a no-good drifter" basis, not the "actually, that's a good/bad edit" basis. I've seen this happen to others enough that the two times I had an edit reverted unreasonably, I just let it roll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't speak for QuietLagoon , but I 'm an IP user who just makes casual edits to improve things where I can , particularly in fields where I know enough independently to spot misleading half-truths ( IMO the really dangerous stuff , not completely bogus articles or endless grammar-fixage ) .
I simply do n't have the inclination to go through dispute resolution -- I 'm doing my part to give back to the resources I use , same as I will occasionally pick up a piece of trash that 's not really my problem to keep the workplace nicer .
In neither case will I go to extraordinary efforts , but I 'm alright with going a little bit out of my way when I 'm not in a hurry .
Fighting someone who owns an article simply does n't fit that type/level of contribution.Additionally , the entire system is biased in favor of people who own articles , and have the time to maintain that " ownership " -- for better or worse , they end up looking more like valuable contributors , and a casual editor like me looks more like a casual vandal , or at best a good-hearted person with all the encyclopedic skills of your average youtube commenter .
Actually telling whether my edit in some technical article is good or not requires a certain level of familiarity with that subject , which is invariably in much shorter supply than familiarity with wikipedia , so when there is a dispute , it gets settled on the " he 's a no-good drifter " basis , not the " actually , that 's a good/bad edit " basis .
I 've seen this happen to others enough that the two times I had an edit reverted unreasonably , I just let it roll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't speak for QuietLagoon, but I'm an IP user who just makes casual edits to improve things where I can, particularly in fields where I know enough independently to spot misleading half-truths (IMO the really dangerous stuff, not completely bogus articles or endless grammar-fixage).
I simply don't have the inclination to go through dispute resolution -- I'm doing my part to give back to the resources I use, same as I will occasionally pick up a piece of trash that's not really my problem to keep the workplace nicer.
In neither case will I go to extraordinary efforts, but I'm alright with going a little bit out of my way when I'm not in a hurry.
Fighting someone who owns an article simply doesn't fit that type/level of contribution.Additionally, the entire system is biased in favor of people who own articles, and have the time to maintain that "ownership" -- for better or worse, they end up looking more like valuable contributors, and a casual editor like me looks more like a casual vandal, or at best a good-hearted person with all the encyclopedic skills of your average youtube commenter.
Actually telling whether my edit in some technical article is good or not requires a certain level of familiarity with that subject, which is invariably in much shorter supply than familiarity with wikipedia, so when there is a dispute, it gets settled on the "he's a no-good drifter" basis, not the "actually, that's a good/bad edit" basis.
I've seen this happen to others enough that the two times I had an edit reverted unreasonably, I just let it roll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383754</id>
	<title>back in the day</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267872360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there was a book called the cathedral and the bazaar</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Cathedral\_and\_the\_Bazaar" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Cathedral\_and\_the\_Bazaar</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>it delineates the difference between bottom up and top down organization, specifically in regards to software development models like linux versus gnu</p><p>obviously, this overlaps thematically with wikipedia in that wikipedia was once a bazaar, and is now becoming a cathedral</p><p>regardless of which model is better for wikipedia, the pluses and minuses of the cathedral versus the bazaar models of software development should be instructive for what exactly wikipedia is winning, and losing, in its trade off between bazaar and cathedral</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a book called the cathedral and the bazaarhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Cathedral \ _and \ _the \ _Bazaar [ wikipedia.org ] it delineates the difference between bottom up and top down organization , specifically in regards to software development models like linux versus gnuobviously , this overlaps thematically with wikipedia in that wikipedia was once a bazaar , and is now becoming a cathedralregardless of which model is better for wikipedia , the pluses and minuses of the cathedral versus the bazaar models of software development should be instructive for what exactly wikipedia is winning , and losing , in its trade off between bazaar and cathedral</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a book called the cathedral and the bazaarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Cathedral\_and\_the\_Bazaar [wikipedia.org]it delineates the difference between bottom up and top down organization, specifically in regards to software development models like linux versus gnuobviously, this overlaps thematically with wikipedia in that wikipedia was once a bazaar, and is now becoming a cathedralregardless of which model is better for wikipedia, the pluses and minuses of the cathedral versus the bazaar models of software development should be instructive for what exactly wikipedia is winning, and losing, in its trade off between bazaar and cathedral</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31396994</id>
	<title>It should be renamed wikiality.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267979760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I refuse to cite wikipedia as a source for documents or articles. Why? Click on these two links for an example.</p><p>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/</p><p>http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to cite wikipedia as a source for documents or articles .
Why ? Click on these two links for an example.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/http : //climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to cite wikipedia as a source for documents or articles.
Why? Click on these two links for an example.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267869660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also updates vary. For example:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina\_Applegate" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Christina\_Applegate</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Current career</p><p>Applegate starred in the ABC comedy, Samantha Who?, until it was canceled on May 18, 2009. The series costarred Jean Smart, Jennifer Esposito, and Melissa McCarthy. The series was about a 30-year-old who, after a hit-and-run accident, develops amnesia and has to rediscover her life, her relationships, and herself.[9] Shortly after the cancellation was announced, Applegate began a campaign to get the show back into production,[10] which was unsuccessful.</p><p><b>Applegate will play Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame, who died of colorectal cancer, in the upcoming film Everything Is Going to Be Just Fine, due to be released in 2009.</b></p><p><b>In January 2009, Applegate appeared with her TV brother David Faustino (Bud Bundy from Married with Children) in an episode of Faustino's show Starving.[11]</b></p> </div><p>Within two lines of each other, one article is talking about the future tense in 2009 and the past tense in 2009. Anyone editing the article as a whole would notice this. When, however, you have people editing piece by piece, simple mistakes can be made like that.</p><p>Also, it doesn't help that I am too lazy to edit the changes myself. Leave it up to the snobby community. I've tried to contribute before, it was the last time I made that mistake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also updates vary .
For example : Christina \ _Applegate [ wikipedia.org ] Current careerApplegate starred in the ABC comedy , Samantha Who ? , until it was canceled on May 18 , 2009 .
The series costarred Jean Smart , Jennifer Esposito , and Melissa McCarthy .
The series was about a 30-year-old who , after a hit-and-run accident , develops amnesia and has to rediscover her life , her relationships , and herself .
[ 9 ] Shortly after the cancellation was announced , Applegate began a campaign to get the show back into production , [ 10 ] which was unsuccessful.Applegate will play Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame , who died of colorectal cancer , in the upcoming film Everything Is Going to Be Just Fine , due to be released in 2009.In January 2009 , Applegate appeared with her TV brother David Faustino ( Bud Bundy from Married with Children ) in an episode of Faustino 's show Starving .
[ 11 ] Within two lines of each other , one article is talking about the future tense in 2009 and the past tense in 2009 .
Anyone editing the article as a whole would notice this .
When , however , you have people editing piece by piece , simple mistakes can be made like that.Also , it does n't help that I am too lazy to edit the changes myself .
Leave it up to the snobby community .
I 've tried to contribute before , it was the last time I made that mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also updates vary.
For example:Christina\_Applegate [wikipedia.org] Current careerApplegate starred in the ABC comedy, Samantha Who?, until it was canceled on May 18, 2009.
The series costarred Jean Smart, Jennifer Esposito, and Melissa McCarthy.
The series was about a 30-year-old who, after a hit-and-run accident, develops amnesia and has to rediscover her life, her relationships, and herself.
[9] Shortly after the cancellation was announced, Applegate began a campaign to get the show back into production,[10] which was unsuccessful.Applegate will play Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame, who died of colorectal cancer, in the upcoming film Everything Is Going to Be Just Fine, due to be released in 2009.In January 2009, Applegate appeared with her TV brother David Faustino (Bud Bundy from Married with Children) in an episode of Faustino's show Starving.
[11] Within two lines of each other, one article is talking about the future tense in 2009 and the past tense in 2009.
Anyone editing the article as a whole would notice this.
When, however, you have people editing piece by piece, simple mistakes can be made like that.Also, it doesn't help that I am too lazy to edit the changes myself.
Leave it up to the snobby community.
I've tried to contribute before, it was the last time I made that mistake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31420710</id>
	<title>Re:Missing role: deleters</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268136480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seriously, I'm encountering more and more 'deleted' articles when I search Wikipedia.</i></p><p>Wikipedia has to be careful not to fill up the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I 'm encountering more and more 'deleted ' articles when I search Wikipedia.Wikipedia has to be careful not to fill up the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I'm encountering more and more 'deleted' articles when I search Wikipedia.Wikipedia has to be careful not to fill up the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385134</id>
	<title>the notability requirement killed wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267883820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The notability requirement killed wikipedia.  Encouraging people to provide ever better sources is something I agree with but to delete articles because the sources "aren't good enough" is ridiculous.  Maybe for the George Bush article there ought to be some sort of minimum requirement but for an article on an alien race in a science fiction show?  If the best source you have for a particular claim is an episode of that show than I don't see what the problem is.  Besides, I'd consider an episode to be a better source, anyway, then a newsweek.com article on the show by someone who doesn't even watch it.</p><p>At the rate wikipedia is going, you're going to need sources just to prove what the sources say.  Like if you have access to an article behind a paywall, wikipedia's liable to, at some point, say that you're claim that that's what the article says is insufficient - that you need to provide another source to "prove" what the article behind the paywall says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notability requirement killed wikipedia .
Encouraging people to provide ever better sources is something I agree with but to delete articles because the sources " are n't good enough " is ridiculous .
Maybe for the George Bush article there ought to be some sort of minimum requirement but for an article on an alien race in a science fiction show ?
If the best source you have for a particular claim is an episode of that show than I do n't see what the problem is .
Besides , I 'd consider an episode to be a better source , anyway , then a newsweek.com article on the show by someone who does n't even watch it.At the rate wikipedia is going , you 're going to need sources just to prove what the sources say .
Like if you have access to an article behind a paywall , wikipedia 's liable to , at some point , say that you 're claim that that 's what the article says is insufficient - that you need to provide another source to " prove " what the article behind the paywall says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notability requirement killed wikipedia.
Encouraging people to provide ever better sources is something I agree with but to delete articles because the sources "aren't good enough" is ridiculous.
Maybe for the George Bush article there ought to be some sort of minimum requirement but for an article on an alien race in a science fiction show?
If the best source you have for a particular claim is an episode of that show than I don't see what the problem is.
Besides, I'd consider an episode to be a better source, anyway, then a newsweek.com article on the show by someone who doesn't even watch it.At the rate wikipedia is going, you're going to need sources just to prove what the sources say.
Like if you have access to an article behind a paywall, wikipedia's liable to, at some point, say that you're claim that that's what the article says is insufficient - that you need to provide another source to "prove" what the article behind the paywall says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384570</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1267878960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Practice makes perfect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Practice makes perfect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Practice makes perfect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386104</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267892340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not worth it.   It is not my problem to solve and waste time on.  It is WikiPedia's problem to solve.  And, to be honest, I see little effort on the part of WikiPedia to resolve this issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not worth it .
It is not my problem to solve and waste time on .
It is WikiPedia 's problem to solve .
And , to be honest , I see little effort on the part of WikiPedia to resolve this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not worth it.
It is not my problem to solve and waste time on.
It is WikiPedia's problem to solve.
And, to be honest, I see little effort on the part of WikiPedia to resolve this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383510</id>
	<title>Re:Missing role: deleters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267870440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're only looking at people who contribute, not at the people who destroy.</p><p>I'm with you on the deletionist troll issue though. Many interesting articles have been deleted outright and many wiki pages for interesting projects are deleted, just because someone, somewhere hasn't heard of it.<br>The deletionism also makes the whole Wikipedia experience that much more annoying, because when you click on a  link for &amp;Name, obviously expecting a meaningful answer to how it ties into this article, you instead get referred to a page that is of absolutely no use, and offers information like sun is hot.</p><p>I realize this is not the best of explanations but it's what I got out. Take it or leave it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're only looking at people who contribute , not at the people who destroy.I 'm with you on the deletionist troll issue though .
Many interesting articles have been deleted outright and many wiki pages for interesting projects are deleted , just because someone , somewhere has n't heard of it.The deletionism also makes the whole Wikipedia experience that much more annoying , because when you click on a link for &amp;Name , obviously expecting a meaningful answer to how it ties into this article , you instead get referred to a page that is of absolutely no use , and offers information like sun is hot.I realize this is not the best of explanations but it 's what I got out .
Take it or leave it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're only looking at people who contribute, not at the people who destroy.I'm with you on the deletionist troll issue though.
Many interesting articles have been deleted outright and many wiki pages for interesting projects are deleted, just because someone, somewhere hasn't heard of it.The deletionism also makes the whole Wikipedia experience that much more annoying, because when you click on a  link for &amp;Name, obviously expecting a meaningful answer to how it ties into this article, you instead get referred to a page that is of absolutely no use, and offers information like sun is hot.I realize this is not the best of explanations but it's what I got out.
Take it or leave it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386126</id>
	<title>Notability does not work that way</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267892520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is arrogance in the extreme - destroying some people's work because they incorrectly assumed that no-one would ever want to see it.</p></div><p>
Notability does not work that way.
</p><p>
Verifiability of each claim against reliable sources is Wikipedia's core content policy. "Reliable sources" is Wikipedia-speak for scholarly or mainstream media. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NN#General\_notability\_guideline" title="wikipedia.org">Notability of a topic</a> [wikipedia.org] is merely an upper bound on verifiability of claims made about a topic: whether it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." But if you know of one or more reliable sources about the "particular topic" in question, try this:</p><ol> <li>In your user space, write a stub article citing those sources. The better your sources, the more likely this new article will stick.</li><li>Go to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_undeletion" title="wikipedia.org">RFU</a> [wikipedia.org] and have the original deleted article undeleted into your user space.</li><li>Merge what you can of the two articles, and move the result back to article space.</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is arrogance in the extreme - destroying some people 's work because they incorrectly assumed that no-one would ever want to see it .
Notability does not work that way .
Verifiability of each claim against reliable sources is Wikipedia 's core content policy .
" Reliable sources " is Wikipedia-speak for scholarly or mainstream media .
Notability of a topic [ wikipedia.org ] is merely an upper bound on verifiability of claims made about a topic : whether it " has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject .
" But if you know of one or more reliable sources about the " particular topic " in question , try this : In your user space , write a stub article citing those sources .
The better your sources , the more likely this new article will stick.Go to RFU [ wikipedia.org ] and have the original deleted article undeleted into your user space.Merge what you can of the two articles , and move the result back to article space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is arrogance in the extreme - destroying some people's work because they incorrectly assumed that no-one would ever want to see it.
Notability does not work that way.
Verifiability of each claim against reliable sources is Wikipedia's core content policy.
"Reliable sources" is Wikipedia-speak for scholarly or mainstream media.
Notability of a topic [wikipedia.org] is merely an upper bound on verifiability of claims made about a topic: whether it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
" But if you know of one or more reliable sources about the "particular topic" in question, try this: In your user space, write a stub article citing those sources.
The better your sources, the more likely this new article will stick.Go to RFU [wikipedia.org] and have the original deleted article undeleted into your user space.Merge what you can of the two articles, and move the result back to article space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384222</id>
	<title>Countless egos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267875780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can count how many huge egos are on there.<br>The amount of in-fighting is pretty high too.<br>If you are a new contributor to the site, good luck actually fitting in, you will be pushed aside by all the elitist asses who think they are god.</p><p>Article stalking theives.  These are the ones who stalk and revert any edits by people, then end up adding it later on in their own words.</p><p>Delete-happy idiots that end up causing delete-revert wars.</p><p>Revert and ask questions later.<br>These fuckers are the worst.  They have single-handedly ruined Wikipedia.<br>The other things don't even compare to the idiots going around reverting every single change just because.</p><p>Wikipedia was fine a few years back, but now it is just out of control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can count how many huge egos are on there.The amount of in-fighting is pretty high too.If you are a new contributor to the site , good luck actually fitting in , you will be pushed aside by all the elitist asses who think they are god.Article stalking theives .
These are the ones who stalk and revert any edits by people , then end up adding it later on in their own words.Delete-happy idiots that end up causing delete-revert wars.Revert and ask questions later.These fuckers are the worst .
They have single-handedly ruined Wikipedia.The other things do n't even compare to the idiots going around reverting every single change just because.Wikipedia was fine a few years back , but now it is just out of control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can count how many huge egos are on there.The amount of in-fighting is pretty high too.If you are a new contributor to the site, good luck actually fitting in, you will be pushed aside by all the elitist asses who think they are god.Article stalking theives.
These are the ones who stalk and revert any edits by people, then end up adding it later on in their own words.Delete-happy idiots that end up causing delete-revert wars.Revert and ask questions later.These fuckers are the worst.
They have single-handedly ruined Wikipedia.The other things don't even compare to the idiots going around reverting every single change just because.Wikipedia was fine a few years back, but now it is just out of control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388884</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1267972200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Total bullshit.  The quality of wikipedia is the sum total of information it contains, which is found by integrating over the article space, not averaging it.  Nobody goes looking for an article on the lead singer of, say, Mouse &amp; The Trapps expecting to read Greil Marcus's inside story.  And not finding the article...I mean, how often have you gone looking for Poland and instead been sucked into Pubic Hair and just not been able to extricate yourself?  Nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Total bullshit .
The quality of wikipedia is the sum total of information it contains , which is found by integrating over the article space , not averaging it .
Nobody goes looking for an article on the lead singer of , say , Mouse &amp; The Trapps expecting to read Greil Marcus 's inside story .
And not finding the article...I mean , how often have you gone looking for Poland and instead been sucked into Pubic Hair and just not been able to extricate yourself ?
Nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total bullshit.
The quality of wikipedia is the sum total of information it contains, which is found by integrating over the article space, not averaging it.
Nobody goes looking for an article on the lead singer of, say, Mouse &amp; The Trapps expecting to read Greil Marcus's inside story.
And not finding the article...I mean, how often have you gone looking for Poland and instead been sucked into Pubic Hair and just not been able to extricate yourself?
Nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>gsslay</author>
	<datestamp>1267876860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?</p></div><p>Because ;</p><p>- if the quality of Wikipedia is measured by averaging the quality of all its articles, deleting the crap raises the quality of Wikipedia.<br>- crap inevitably attracts more crap.  If the crap articles weren't deleted they would multiply.<br>- crap pages, written by people who mistake Wikipedia for a free web-host for their fan site, give Wikipedia a bad name.<br>- if you can't find the good articles for stumbling over the crap, you're likely to stop looking and go some place else.</p><p>If crap pages weren't deleted Wikipedia would drown under them.  Regardless of infinite disk space, or unlimited bandwidth.  Wikipedia is essentially a database.  If you fill a database with too much garbage it becomes useless, no matter how much data of true value in in there also.  The noise to signal ratio becomes unbearable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better ? Because ; - if the quality of Wikipedia is measured by averaging the quality of all its articles , deleting the crap raises the quality of Wikipedia.- crap inevitably attracts more crap .
If the crap articles were n't deleted they would multiply.- crap pages , written by people who mistake Wikipedia for a free web-host for their fan site , give Wikipedia a bad name.- if you ca n't find the good articles for stumbling over the crap , you 're likely to stop looking and go some place else.If crap pages were n't deleted Wikipedia would drown under them .
Regardless of infinite disk space , or unlimited bandwidth .
Wikipedia is essentially a database .
If you fill a database with too much garbage it becomes useless , no matter how much data of true value in in there also .
The noise to signal ratio becomes unbearable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that editors think deleting articles somehow makes it better?Because ;- if the quality of Wikipedia is measured by averaging the quality of all its articles, deleting the crap raises the quality of Wikipedia.- crap inevitably attracts more crap.
If the crap articles weren't deleted they would multiply.- crap pages, written by people who mistake Wikipedia for a free web-host for their fan site, give Wikipedia a bad name.- if you can't find the good articles for stumbling over the crap, you're likely to stop looking and go some place else.If crap pages weren't deleted Wikipedia would drown under them.
Regardless of infinite disk space, or unlimited bandwidth.
Wikipedia is essentially a database.
If you fill a database with too much garbage it becomes useless, no matter how much data of true value in in there also.
The noise to signal ratio becomes unbearable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383500</id>
	<title>Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267870380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia is great for anything involving mathematics or Star Wars.  Everything else seems kind of suspect to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is great for anything involving mathematics or Star Wars .
Everything else seems kind of suspect to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is great for anything involving mathematics or Star Wars.
Everything else seems kind of suspect to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31389268</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>gnud</author>
	<datestamp>1267974060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This would be true if Wikipedia had a semi-useful search or index function. As it is, I'm using Google to search anyway, so I really don't care whether there are 100.000 or 100.000.000 wikipedia pages irrellevant to my search.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be true if Wikipedia had a semi-useful search or index function .
As it is , I 'm using Google to search anyway , so I really do n't care whether there are 100.000 or 100.000.000 wikipedia pages irrellevant to my search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be true if Wikipedia had a semi-useful search or index function.
As it is, I'm using Google to search anyway, so I really don't care whether there are 100.000 or 100.000.000 wikipedia pages irrellevant to my search.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383394</id>
	<title>Why Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267869600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[Citation Needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation Needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Citation Needed]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594</id>
	<title>My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Articles dominated by one or two "keepers" tend to be the most biased and lowest quality.   Quality edits are tossed aside merely because they do not meet the agenda wanted by the keepers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles dominated by one or two " keepers " tend to be the most biased and lowest quality .
Quality edits are tossed aside merely because they do not meet the agenda wanted by the keepers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles dominated by one or two "keepers" tend to be the most biased and lowest quality.
Quality edits are tossed aside merely because they do not meet the agenda wanted by the keepers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383584</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Articles written by experienced people with a wide array of skills are stronger than those written by novices? Never could have guessed.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>That's the beauty of data mining; you can find things out that would have otherwise been totally unknown. TFA states that they will next be applying these techniques to determine whether water is wet...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles written by experienced people with a wide array of skills are stronger than those written by novices ?
Never could have guessed .
That 's the beauty of data mining ; you can find things out that would have otherwise been totally unknown .
TFA states that they will next be applying these techniques to determine whether water is wet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles written by experienced people with a wide array of skills are stronger than those written by novices?
Never could have guessed.
That's the beauty of data mining; you can find things out that would have otherwise been totally unknown.
TFA states that they will next be applying these techniques to determine whether water is wet...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383668</id>
	<title>Re:Quality Ratings</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1267871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That flaw has always been there, and similar was included in every version of every printed encyclopedia. It's hard to get around that without thousands of editors working full time. The premise of Wikipedia is good, but if you want to trust some information you found on the Internet... errrmm, you need to validate it, corroborate it, and research it yourself if necessary. For me, Wikipedia makes a great starting point to learn about something, just as any single book on any given subject is a good place to *start*. The principle of trust but verify applies for many things, but caveat emptor equally applies. Personally, much of the content of Wikipedia is better than asking Yahoo! Answers and others. meh, it's a thing. If you were supposed to get all your answers from a single source, god wouldn't have made Al Gore invent the Internet. Get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That flaw has always been there , and similar was included in every version of every printed encyclopedia .
It 's hard to get around that without thousands of editors working full time .
The premise of Wikipedia is good , but if you want to trust some information you found on the Internet... errrmm , you need to validate it , corroborate it , and research it yourself if necessary .
For me , Wikipedia makes a great starting point to learn about something , just as any single book on any given subject is a good place to * start * .
The principle of trust but verify applies for many things , but caveat emptor equally applies .
Personally , much of the content of Wikipedia is better than asking Yahoo !
Answers and others .
meh , it 's a thing .
If you were supposed to get all your answers from a single source , god would n't have made Al Gore invent the Internet .
Get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That flaw has always been there, and similar was included in every version of every printed encyclopedia.
It's hard to get around that without thousands of editors working full time.
The premise of Wikipedia is good, but if you want to trust some information you found on the Internet... errrmm, you need to validate it, corroborate it, and research it yourself if necessary.
For me, Wikipedia makes a great starting point to learn about something, just as any single book on any given subject is a good place to *start*.
The principle of trust but verify applies for many things, but caveat emptor equally applies.
Personally, much of the content of Wikipedia is better than asking Yahoo!
Answers and others.
meh, it's a thing.
If you were supposed to get all your answers from a single source, god wouldn't have made Al Gore invent the Internet.
Get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384072</id>
	<title>Roles</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1267874640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the five years that I've been a Wikipedia editor, I've played most of these roles, but right now I'm definitely a watchdog. I primarily revert vandalism. It's a good way to stay out of edits wars. At this point, most of the stuff on Wikipedia is way too messy to clean up and/or improve. I'd rather clean up Cowboys Stadium on any given Sunday in the Fall than clean up content on Wikipedia. As for deletionists? They deal with the administrative (sigh) aspect of Wikipedia, while this study seems to be driven mainly on the content itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the five years that I 've been a Wikipedia editor , I 've played most of these roles , but right now I 'm definitely a watchdog .
I primarily revert vandalism .
It 's a good way to stay out of edits wars .
At this point , most of the stuff on Wikipedia is way too messy to clean up and/or improve .
I 'd rather clean up Cowboys Stadium on any given Sunday in the Fall than clean up content on Wikipedia .
As for deletionists ?
They deal with the administrative ( sigh ) aspect of Wikipedia , while this study seems to be driven mainly on the content itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the five years that I've been a Wikipedia editor, I've played most of these roles, but right now I'm definitely a watchdog.
I primarily revert vandalism.
It's a good way to stay out of edits wars.
At this point, most of the stuff on Wikipedia is way too messy to clean up and/or improve.
I'd rather clean up Cowboys Stadium on any given Sunday in the Fall than clean up content on Wikipedia.
As for deletionists?
They deal with the administrative (sigh) aspect of Wikipedia, while this study seems to be driven mainly on the content itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31391414</id>
	<title>Re:Quality</title>
	<author>SpaceToast</author>
	<datestamp>1267986480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science articles are often quite good, but mathematics articles are terrible. They read like pages from graduate textbooks. There is of course nothing wrong with advanced or highly technical information on a topic, but in order to be "encyclopedic" an article needs to first describe a concept in layman's terms. (Economics articles have similar problems, but I've seen less push-back when making readability edits on those.) A basic mathematical concept like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation\_(mathematics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">rotation</a> [wikipedia.org] describes two-dimensional rotation in matrix algebra, and then for complex numbers. If the average college graduate can't get through the first section of an article, it needs work. If I add a section on the basic geometric formula for rotating a point around the axis, do you think it will survive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science articles are often quite good , but mathematics articles are terrible .
They read like pages from graduate textbooks .
There is of course nothing wrong with advanced or highly technical information on a topic , but in order to be " encyclopedic " an article needs to first describe a concept in layman 's terms .
( Economics articles have similar problems , but I 've seen less push-back when making readability edits on those .
) A basic mathematical concept like rotation [ wikipedia.org ] describes two-dimensional rotation in matrix algebra , and then for complex numbers .
If the average college graduate ca n't get through the first section of an article , it needs work .
If I add a section on the basic geometric formula for rotating a point around the axis , do you think it will survive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science articles are often quite good, but mathematics articles are terrible.
They read like pages from graduate textbooks.
There is of course nothing wrong with advanced or highly technical information on a topic, but in order to be "encyclopedic" an article needs to first describe a concept in layman's terms.
(Economics articles have similar problems, but I've seen less push-back when making readability edits on those.
) A basic mathematical concept like rotation [wikipedia.org] describes two-dimensional rotation in matrix algebra, and then for complex numbers.
If the average college graduate can't get through the first section of an article, it needs work.
If I add a section on the basic geometric formula for rotating a point around the axis, do you think it will survive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383680</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267871640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My goodness. I killed Christina Applegate.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Invalid URL<br>The requested URL "/wiki/Christina\_Applegate", is invalid.</p><p>Reference #9.2f1a1918.1267911250.45a41b4d</p> </div><p>My apologies, Kelly Bundy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My goodness .
I killed Christina Applegate.Invalid URLThe requested URL " /wiki/Christina \ _Applegate " , is invalid.Reference # 9.2f1a1918.1267911250.45a41b4d My apologies , Kelly Bundy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My goodness.
I killed Christina Applegate.Invalid URLThe requested URL "/wiki/Christina\_Applegate", is invalid.Reference #9.2f1a1918.1267911250.45a41b4d My apologies, Kelly Bundy!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383962</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia's Editors</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1267873740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny, some comments in here complain that many articles have gotten stale and aren't well-maintained. Others, like yours, complain that there aren't enough articles. These two complaints are at odds with each other - a fixed number of editors can either maintain a smaller, more important set of articles, or can devote their time to starting and watching new articles. Your criticism is largely overblown too: there are, on average, over 1000 new articles a day. I'd like to see any print Encyclopedia do this in a year.</p><p>Frankly, I prefer less but higher-quality articles, because it minimizes the amount of misinformation (one of the biggest plagues in early Wikipedia). It helps minimize the number of esoteric articles from being started and then forgotten. The only real rule you need to know when starting an article is notability: the 22342342343 policies are only in place to remove subjectivity from the process. Common sense can get you most of the way there, but if you are in the habit of starting articles understanding the five "general notability guideline" will save you a lot of hassle. And only takes about five minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , some comments in here complain that many articles have gotten stale and are n't well-maintained .
Others , like yours , complain that there are n't enough articles .
These two complaints are at odds with each other - a fixed number of editors can either maintain a smaller , more important set of articles , or can devote their time to starting and watching new articles .
Your criticism is largely overblown too : there are , on average , over 1000 new articles a day .
I 'd like to see any print Encyclopedia do this in a year.Frankly , I prefer less but higher-quality articles , because it minimizes the amount of misinformation ( one of the biggest plagues in early Wikipedia ) .
It helps minimize the number of esoteric articles from being started and then forgotten .
The only real rule you need to know when starting an article is notability : the 22342342343 policies are only in place to remove subjectivity from the process .
Common sense can get you most of the way there , but if you are in the habit of starting articles understanding the five " general notability guideline " will save you a lot of hassle .
And only takes about five minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, some comments in here complain that many articles have gotten stale and aren't well-maintained.
Others, like yours, complain that there aren't enough articles.
These two complaints are at odds with each other - a fixed number of editors can either maintain a smaller, more important set of articles, or can devote their time to starting and watching new articles.
Your criticism is largely overblown too: there are, on average, over 1000 new articles a day.
I'd like to see any print Encyclopedia do this in a year.Frankly, I prefer less but higher-quality articles, because it minimizes the amount of misinformation (one of the biggest plagues in early Wikipedia).
It helps minimize the number of esoteric articles from being started and then forgotten.
The only real rule you need to know when starting an article is notability: the 22342342343 policies are only in place to remove subjectivity from the process.
Common sense can get you most of the way there, but if you are in the habit of starting articles understanding the five "general notability guideline" will save you a lot of hassle.
And only takes about five minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384292</id>
	<title>Re:My experience with WikiPedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267876500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a major part of the problem. Bono was given as being both from Finglas and Ballymun when most everyone knew he was not but because most online sources did not correctly have him being from Glasnevin this was not acknowledged for ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a major part of the problem .
Bono was given as being both from Finglas and Ballymun when most everyone knew he was not but because most online sources did not correctly have him being from Glasnevin this was not acknowledged for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a major part of the problem.
Bono was given as being both from Finglas and Ballymun when most everyone knew he was not but because most online sources did not correctly have him being from Glasnevin this was not acknowledged for ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298</id>
	<title>Missing role: deleters</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1267868820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I'm encountering more and more 'deleted' articles when I search Wikipedia.</p><p>Can someone stop deleters? Or at least offer an option to view deleted articles (Deletionpedia works only for English language).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I 'm encountering more and more 'deleted ' articles when I search Wikipedia.Can someone stop deleters ?
Or at least offer an option to view deleted articles ( Deletionpedia works only for English language ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I'm encountering more and more 'deleted' articles when I search Wikipedia.Can someone stop deleters?
Or at least offer an option to view deleted articles (Deletionpedia works only for English language).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383424</id>
	<title>Maybe looking at it the wrong way?</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1267869780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I'm more likely to "casually contribute" to Wikipedia on a low-quality article. Maybe the casual contributors just don't see the point of changing anything in an article that's already had a lot of attention?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm more likely to " casually contribute " to Wikipedia on a low-quality article .
Maybe the casual contributors just do n't see the point of changing anything in an article that 's already had a lot of attention ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm more likely to "casually contribute" to Wikipedia on a low-quality article.
Maybe the casual contributors just don't see the point of changing anything in an article that's already had a lot of attention?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Articles written by experienced people with a wide array of skills are stronger than those written by novices? Never could have guessed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles written by experienced people with a wide array of skills are stronger than those written by novices ?
Never could have guessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles written by experienced people with a wide array of skills are stronger than those written by novices?
Never could have guessed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384286</id>
	<title>Re:Missing role: deleters</title>
	<author>thelamecamel</author>
	<datestamp>1267876440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is really quite pathetic.  On several occasions now I have wanted some information on a particular topic (e.g. a shitty old game I picked up, my mobile phone, or even a description of lemon party).  I go to the wikipedia page, I can tell that several people went to the effort of writing an entry on that topic but the page was deleted by someone who decided that no-one would ever want to see that information.  This is arrogance in the extreme - destroying some people's work because they incorrectly assumed that no-one would ever want to see it.  Was the article getting in the way before it was deleted?!</p><p>Surely Wikipedia could have a link to view pages that were 'deleted' for non-notability - what would be so bad about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is really quite pathetic .
On several occasions now I have wanted some information on a particular topic ( e.g .
a shitty old game I picked up , my mobile phone , or even a description of lemon party ) .
I go to the wikipedia page , I can tell that several people went to the effort of writing an entry on that topic but the page was deleted by someone who decided that no-one would ever want to see that information .
This is arrogance in the extreme - destroying some people 's work because they incorrectly assumed that no-one would ever want to see it .
Was the article getting in the way before it was deleted ?
! Surely Wikipedia could have a link to view pages that were 'deleted ' for non-notability - what would be so bad about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is really quite pathetic.
On several occasions now I have wanted some information on a particular topic (e.g.
a shitty old game I picked up, my mobile phone, or even a description of lemon party).
I go to the wikipedia page, I can tell that several people went to the effort of writing an entry on that topic but the page was deleted by someone who decided that no-one would ever want to see that information.
This is arrogance in the extreme - destroying some people's work because they incorrectly assumed that no-one would ever want to see it.
Was the article getting in the way before it was deleted?
!Surely Wikipedia could have a link to view pages that were 'deleted' for non-notability - what would be so bad about that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385354</id>
	<title>reversions drove me away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267885320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have tried to add info to some wikipedia articles because of errors or because I'm an expert on some facet and the changes are always reverted - so I will never bother to edit an article</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have tried to add info to some wikipedia articles because of errors or because I 'm an expert on some facet and the changes are always reverted - so I will never bother to edit an article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have tried to add info to some wikipedia articles because of errors or because I'm an expert on some facet and the changes are always reverted - so I will never bother to edit an article</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385990</id>
	<title>The month</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267891320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Applegate will play Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame, who died of colorectal cancer, in the upcoming film Everything Is Going to Be Just Fine, due to be released in 2009.</p><p>In January 2009, Applegate appeared with her TV brother David Faustino (Bud Bundy from Married with Children) in an episode of Faustino's show Starving.[11]</p></div><p>Within two lines of each other, one article is talking about the future tense in 2009 and the past tense in 2009. Anyone editing the article as a whole would notice this. When, however, you have people editing piece by piece, simple mistakes can be made like that.</p></div><p>Consider an edit made on March 2009. January of that year was the past and November was the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Applegate will play Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame , who died of colorectal cancer , in the upcoming film Everything Is Going to Be Just Fine , due to be released in 2009.In January 2009 , Applegate appeared with her TV brother David Faustino ( Bud Bundy from Married with Children ) in an episode of Faustino 's show Starving .
[ 11 ] Within two lines of each other , one article is talking about the future tense in 2009 and the past tense in 2009 .
Anyone editing the article as a whole would notice this .
When , however , you have people editing piece by piece , simple mistakes can be made like that.Consider an edit made on March 2009 .
January of that year was the past and November was the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Applegate will play Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame, who died of colorectal cancer, in the upcoming film Everything Is Going to Be Just Fine, due to be released in 2009.In January 2009, Applegate appeared with her TV brother David Faustino (Bud Bundy from Married with Children) in an episode of Faustino's show Starving.
[11]Within two lines of each other, one article is talking about the future tense in 2009 and the past tense in 2009.
Anyone editing the article as a whole would notice this.
When, however, you have people editing piece by piece, simple mistakes can be made like that.Consider an edit made on March 2009.
January of that year was the past and November was the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31391414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31389268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31395358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31420710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31390386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1917223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31389268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31420710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31391414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31385990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31386104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31390386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31395358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31387432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31384292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31388798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1917223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1917223.31383494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
