On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Only people with weak ideas dismiss and insult opinions of others.
People
who wish to mass remove articles have this tendency.
Really? I'm crushed, honestly. I consider myself to be an inclusionist, but I did some more arithmetic on your idea that we should have an article per star:
According to the Observable Universe galaxy, there's ~1e22 stars in the observable universe (*rather* more than trillions- and while it's uncited, it seems consistent with the numbers following it which are cited). If we assume just 100 bytes of article per star, that's 1e24 bytes. If for the sake of argument we assume that 1G of data costs $0.1, then that's about $100e12 just for a single copy of all the articles. Allowing for a duplicate copy, that's ~100x the cost of the Iraq war (just the disk).
Apart from the costs, I hope you'll forgive me if I find the point of having 10 trillion articles for each and every man, woman and child on Earth incomprehensible from the point of view of an encyclopedia.
- White Cat
-- -Ian Woollard https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You two have just pretty much defined by example reductio ad absurdum, on both ends of the spectrum.
Isn't there anyone who isn't readily willing to descend into such inanity who will defend deletionism?