Ian Woollard wrote:
On 10/03/2008, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are over trillions of stars in the are of
space we can see via naked
eye or instruments. The analogy generally used to describe is that there are
more stars in the universe than sand in the beaches of this entire planet.
Clearly a star is a notable object in space worthy of an article.
No. I sure hope you're joking or being sarcastic.
I would read his comments as perfectly serious. Not even the most
extreme inclusionist will believe that it is possible to write an
article on each of a trillion stars. He is intelligent enough to know
that if every Wikipedian were to devote himself to only that task to the
exclusion of everything else that's interesting, it could not happen.
If some individual is delusional enough to believe that he can get
somewhere in that kind of endeavour, and sets out on the task with
properly referenced articles every star that's worked on, the rest of us
are confident that at some point he will get tired of the task and
proceed to another delusion. A very limited number of forgettable
articles will have been created; the task will have been self-limiting
without the intervention of deletionist drama. The articles may be
readily admitted as useless, but a campaign to expunge uselessness only
becomes support for the meta-useless.
It seems to me that with some of the deletion programmes the
participants have just discovered the uselessness of male nipples, and
have used this discovery to justify a policy of compulsory surgical removal.
And it is
feasible to write entire articles on each and every one of them if something
as dull as Proxima Centauri (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri)
is any indication.
No, since there isn't enough people on Earth to do that by a factor of
billions. And even if we automated it, who the heck would ever read
any more than the absolute vanishing tiny fraction of it? And how
would the wikipedia back up such an enormous database of articles? And
what are they all there for if, for all intents and purposes nobody
reads them?
Even you see the impossibility of the task. Why worry about enormous
database space for something that will never happen? The US Patent
Office is now up to around seven million in its main patent line. It
does not expunge the record of an old patent on the sole grounds that
nobody will ever read it. While there is an ego-boosting quality to
having someone discover our work on a specific article one cannot
presume that the writer and the reader will stand in the same relation
to the article. Attaching utilitarian preconditions to articles stifles
the creative interpretation of those articles.
And if it's automated why not just automate
generating an article if
anybody actually wants that article from the databases? And in that
case if it's automatically completely generated it's not part of the
wikipedia per se. And tools that can process the data in multiple
different ways, not *juEst* generate *an* article for *a* star are
normally much more useful anyway. Again it's not something that the
wikipedia gets involved in, and I don't think it ever should.
I'm just as sceptical about the prospect of automatically generated
articles, but until something like what you say becomes reasonably
feasible there's not much to be concerned about. I'm sure we all
remember the fuss when the articles for small US villages were botted in.
We should not
dump them for being "Astronomy cruft". We
should expand them instead.
Look, at the end of the day, there's a law of diminishing returns.
Your email here is a poster-child to the absolute uselessness of
having an article on each entry of a large database.
The great thing about the law
of diminishing returns is that it would
still work even if there were no deletionists running around trying to
enforce it.
Ec