The fact that Esperanto has a large number of multilingual contributors is not surprising. It's no one's native language (so every Esperanto speaker is fluent in something else), and it's usually the third, fourth, or fifth (or more) language. Jut updating articles about Esperanto can take you to many wikis.
I'd like to know whether these contributions were text, or if adding the same set of images to many Wikipedias counted the same as being able to write a sentence. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to hear anything people have to say about open-source grammar checkers. The one mentioned here, LanguageTool, isn't likely to be useful. (When I asked it to check World War II, it told me: "The noun 'all' seems to be countable, so consider using: alls.") - Dank ( push to talk) 19:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
// Add LanguageTool launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", "http://community.languagetool.org/wikiCheck/index?url=" + wgPageName, "LanguageTool" )});
"... it is hard to see any benefit of this study ..." or of summarising it or otherwise reporting on it. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And indeed all the reasons mentioned there are why Wikipedia articles, imperfect as they are, are still much much better than most peer reviewed literature: they are accessible. Unlike the said study, which, paywalled or not, will not be read by not only most students, but even by most instructors and practitioners. Rather than wasting time trying to warn the students way from Wikipedia, the study should do the more constructive thing, which is to encourage the instructors and students to improve Wikipedia articles, as some others, commendable initiatives have done. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Esperanto has a large number of multilingual contributors is not surprising. It's no one's native language (so every Esperanto speaker is fluent in something else), and it's usually the third, fourth, or fifth (or more) language. Jut updating articles about Esperanto can take you to many wikis.
I'd like to know whether these contributions were text, or if adding the same set of images to many Wikipedias counted the same as being able to write a sentence. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to hear anything people have to say about open-source grammar checkers. The one mentioned here, LanguageTool, isn't likely to be useful. (When I asked it to check World War II, it told me: "The noun 'all' seems to be countable, so consider using: alls.") - Dank ( push to talk) 19:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
// Add LanguageTool launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", "http://community.languagetool.org/wikiCheck/index?url=" + wgPageName, "LanguageTool" )});
"... it is hard to see any benefit of this study ..." or of summarising it or otherwise reporting on it. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And indeed all the reasons mentioned there are why Wikipedia articles, imperfect as they are, are still much much better than most peer reviewed literature: they are accessible. Unlike the said study, which, paywalled or not, will not be read by not only most students, but even by most instructors and practitioners. Rather than wasting time trying to warn the students way from Wikipedia, the study should do the more constructive thing, which is to encourage the instructors and students to improve Wikipedia articles, as some others, commendable initiatives have done. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)