[WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 11/9/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 8 Nov 2005, at 18:39, kosebamse at gmx.net wrote:
>
> I dont know. Despite what other people seem to think there are huge
> areas
> that are missing. A lot of people find it easier to write with
> something to
> start from. I have written a few of articles from missing encyclopaedic
> articles (ones I knew something about) and other people have found
> them and
> improved them. So even having more stubs is useful.

>From my own experience, articles are more often created than improved
as is demonstrated by the large amounts of school stubs for example.
Also, the complete dismal state on the articles on "Acidity" for
example makes me think improvement is not on the top of the list of
enough people. Merging for example episode articles into lists or the
different languages once spoken in Egypt would provide more detailed
articles and help Wikipedia in the end.

The difference lies in what one calls a stub. I call something a stub
when it has a basic definition and just a tad bit more to get an
article on it's way. while "Bill Clinton was the President of the
United States" conveys a basic meaning, I would call it a substub and
request deletion on the basis of speedy deletion criterion A1. If it
went on to mention his date of birth, political party and a few
biographical details it would be a stub. Too many people want to
create an article NOW, rather than wait for themselves to have
collected sufficient information.

--Mgm