[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent elsewhere.

On 12/8/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: What articles are sitting there? Are they ones we really need? If not, maybe the problem is that we have an "articles for creation" in the first place. As for the indication that this change is working, I'd like to see some more details. How is it working? How is it failing? One place it is probably working well is with those one liners that non-logged in users create when they click on a red link and wind up with a text box. This probably isn't even malicious in many cases. Maybe we could try addressing this but still allowing people to create new articles without logging in if they do so explicitly. I've tried to keep an open mind about this experiment because I agree with Jimbo that it doesn't really change the openness of the site. Pretty much anyone can create an account if they want to. It also doesn't disallow anonymity, since in fact the only way to really be anonymous (to those without CheckUser) would be to create a new account with each edit anyway. (Note that these points wouldn't apply to other changes like not allowing new accounts to create new articles.) The way I see it, this is basically a question of efficiency, what policy best facilitates the creation of good articles but hinders the creation of bad ones. I still haven't seen enough data to make up my mind though. Oh yeah, I'd like to point out the one data point which I found most persuasive. In the statistics that were given, the number of new articles went down by nearly exactly the same as the number of deletions. If that holds up over a long period of time, damn that's a good statistic. Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.

On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was referring to anons creating these substubs before the anon article creation was blocked. Eternal stubs can refer to either the type Andrew mentioned or substubs which some people say are expandable, but actually aren't. Articles at least need a solid base on which to build: a definition and slightly more info. If no one is willing to submit that, I don't see the point in keeping it. Mgm

On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.

On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l