Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.