Grants:IdeaLab/Score articles for readability.: Difference between revisions
Endorsed by TuCove |
Stuartyeates (talk | contribs) endorse |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
<!-- Want to endorse this as a good idea? Add your name by clicking the button in the infobox, or edit this section directly. --> |
<!-- Want to endorse this as a good idea? Add your name by clicking the button in the infobox, or edit this section directly. --> |
||
* [[User:TuCove|TuCove]] ([[User talk:TuCove|talk]]) 15:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
* [[User:TuCove|TuCove]] ([[User talk:TuCove|talk]]) 15:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
* I completely agree. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 02:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Expand your idea== |
==Expand your idea== |
Revision as of 02:15, 18 March 2016
Problem: Experts adopt an article without safeguarding the importance of introductory-level explanation. Expertise drives out enlightenment in pursuit of exactitude.
What is your solution?
A database of readers, of varied educational experience but uniformly high curiosity, willing to rate articles on how well they elucidate their topics or expand upon the general understanding of their topics.
A online method for editors to solicit ratings from readers across a range of likely familiarity with a specific topic and likely need to research the topic.
A consistent set of standards.
Project goals
Protecting Wikipedia readers from the inevitable drift toward technical argot and advanced textbook symbolism with which few general readers are familiar or current.
Get involved
Participants
Endorsements
- TuCove (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Expand your idea
Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.