Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
Assume good faith, please.
OK. AGF. The stubs went nowhere. It's not your falt. It may have even scared others away. You tried, nothing happened. Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting it.
Er, wha? I never said the stubs went nowhere and I have no idea how you derived that from what I wrote. It's possible some of the things I started as stubs are still stubs but plenty of them have grown into full articles since then.
I just hit random page a few times and checked the article histories of all the non-stub articles I came across, and every single one of them started out as a stub in their first few edits. This appears to be a common pattern, try it out yourself.
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable supports the articles. That makes it a violation of verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its 1st sentence.
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope of the policy's impact rather significantly.
of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
that
on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
That's a false dilemma.
It's original research, I'll grant you that. Nonetheless, the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are verifiable.
No, it's worse than original research, it's a logical fallacy. You stated that there were only two options:
1) Start deleting anything that doesn't have "reliable sources" 2) Be the butt of jokes and lose our credibility
It's simply not true that those are the only options, there are plenty of others.