On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Points arise from that, clearly. But I'm hearing
quite a lot recently
from the "glass half empty" people. You know, ten short stubs are
created, and a year later five are still stubby, five are much improved.
Are we glad to have five new substantial articles, or embarrassed to
have persistent five stubs? So has this made things proportionately
better or worse? Discuss.
Wikipedia is a work in progress, despite a certain proportion of
editors always having been uncomfortable with this being apparent, and
a stub is frequently more informative to the reader than nothing.
- d.