On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It's about how much can be written on the subject of the article. Seriously, how much needs to be written about a minor (or even major) character in a movie, if they are known for nothing outside of that movie, and the portrayal of the character in the movie was unremarkable?
Does it matter?
Yes. People look at the articles and say "oh, they've only got 2 lines on such and such, and they want me to tell them about it!? What sort of encyclopedia is this?" That is the problem with articles which will never be (and in some cases, /can never be/) anything more than stubs.
I don't know if Raul was joking when he said "every article is potentially a feature", but I wouldn't disagree with that.
Anyway, you contradict yourself: if someone looks up a topic and thinks "they've only got 2 lines on such and such", that implies that it must be possible for the article to be longer. The alternative is that it must be stating everything that is known on the subject, in which case no-one would think the above.
So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does is that such entries damage Wikipedia's credibility.
It does. The more stubs, the more likely people are to miss the good quality stuff.
That doesn't make sense: people come and read what they need/want to.
With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website in the world, I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues.
Oh, I agree. Wikipedia is still only as credible as the rest of the internet - that is, any idiot could have written it.
We do encourage the citing of sources - and reliable ones, at that.
There may still be some whiney critics around, but no-one is listening to them, clearly!
You call librarians and educators "whiney critics whom no-one listens to"?
Eh? Which "librarians and educators" are critics?
Dan