On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:01:50 +0200, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
Le Sunday 18 July 2004 10:17, Mark Ryan a écrit :
We would need the spell checker to be reactivated
and modified so that
articles can be checked on their own (rather than giving a huge list
of all pages with particular errors in them). I don't fancy copying
entire articles into MS Word to check for errors (and people checking
articles for correct spelling would be likely to miss many errors). I
know the spell checker was a huge resource drain on Wikipedia, but if
it is restricted to those permitted to validate articles, it shouldn't
be so bad.
No, real paper publications are always ultimately checked by human eyes even
for spelling. Automatic spelling is just a tool, but it can't detect every
spelling mistakes.
~Mark Ryan
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I know automatic spell checking is just a tool. But we still have
spelling errors being found now, years after they were first inserted
into articles. Humans are prone to errors. I know I can proofread an
essay of my own over ten times and not notice the most obvious
spelling errors. An automatic spell checker would just draw our
attention to possibly overlooked errors. How many spelling errors
would you find on Britannica?