Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think that deletionism forgets that Wiki Is Not Paper, and that completionism is likely to lead us to a better final article.
The problem with this approach is that while Wiki is Not Paper, readers' attention spans are limited. If I want to read an overview of Mother Theresa's life, I most certainly do not want it to be 20 pages long. I'd much prefer a more summarized (dare I say, "encyclopedia-style") biography. If the rest of the information must be in Wikipedia, it'd be nice if it were factored out into separate articles (maybe "Criticism of Mother Theresa" and "Reasons for Mother Theresa's Beatification" or something similar). Generally if a Wikipedia article is so ridiculously long that nobody not doing a thesis on the topic would want to read it, it becomes much less useful to the general public.
-Mark
Absolutely correct. Encyclopædic articles are not simply limited by paper but by a range of other issues; readability, context, comprendability, communicative structure, layout, etc. Extraordinarily complex topics need a lot of space; World Wars I and II, Vietnam War, intellectual concepts, major historical facts, etc but except in extreme cases we need to keep biographies readable, not turn them into theses simply because we don't have a paper usgae limit. Saying 'lets get everything we can in because we can' isn't encyclopædic, it is amateurish. Encylopædias communicate themes, movements, contexts, relevances, not a 'fling the whole lot in' approach. We have books to do that. An encyclopædia fulfils a different educational role. And all producing articles of mini-thesis size will do is frighten away readers, because people don't come to encyclopædias for that sort of information, which they can get, written by professional sociologists/historians/academics on the shelves of their library. If they can get a five paragraph summary in Brittanica, and a good book in the library they will do it, in preference to a 32K article whose reliability they cannot vouch for because they don't know how qualified the authors were to write about it or how much is someone's personal agenda, on wikipedia. We need to remember what an encyclopædia is and is not, what we can do well and by our nature we cannot do well. And in depth NPOV is not wikipedia's strong point given that it does not go through independent assessment but is produced in a free-for-all writing spree. (Often that free-for-all approach produces superb stuff. All too often it doesn't, as the embarrassing article on Mother Teresa, which not a single solitary person hasn recommended in preference to a better, more NPOV version by Adam Carr, is the embodiment of, showing what happens when an article goes seriously, embarrassingly and indeed almost comically wrong.)
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963