From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:
Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as possible. <br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication. If you feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone| "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.
This rule is open for debate. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC) or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).
Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the "Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Regards, Kpjas.
--- "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" living_english_structure@go2.pl wrote:
From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:
Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as possible. <br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication. If you feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone| "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.
This rule is open for debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC) or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).
Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the "Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Regards, Kpjas.
I think both rules are horrible. Just do the best you can do. If you make an obvious typo, someone might fix it without doing anything else. And if you insist that everything that is written must me encyclopedia-quality, nothing will get done. I think we should each write as much as possible in each article, but not more than that. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
This is no good. A good article can start with a good sentence or two, or even a reference to further reading. Expecting folks to work and work (when they probably have something else to do) is discouraging. Best to take the little bit they are willing to do and when the time comes make something better out of it.
Fred
From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" living_english_structure@go2.pl Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:36:26 +0200 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Cc: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Always make articles as complete as possible
From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]
One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:
Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as possible. <br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication. If you feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone| "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.
This rule is open for debate.
Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC) or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).
Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the "Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Regards, Kpjas.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
I've been working on the Ancient History content, so if you've found any problems there, I'd be more than happy to know about them & add them to my to-do list. (Although I came to Wikipedia to work on the Late Ancient/Early Medieval History content -- I ended up getting pulled into that area because it needed work.)
I'd be happy to hear more about this offline.
Geoff
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
I think he means the pages that haven't been touched for a long time.
Leave them alone long enough and they *could* become ancient history in the other sense ("Many scholars consider Lir and Michael to be the same person; although the internal evidence is sometimes contradictory, much of the change history was lost in the database crash of 2043, and the one surviving backup on CD (in the Vatican Library, #3483334) is partially oxidized and has too many bit errors to be relied upon.")
:-)
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
I think he means the pages that haven't been touched for a long time.
Leave them alone long enough and they *could* become ancient history in the other sense ("Many scholars consider Lir and Michael to be the same person; although the internal evidence is sometimes contradictory, much of the change history was lost in the database crash of 2043, and the one surviving backup on CD (in the Vatican Library, #3483334) is partially oxidized and has too many bit errors to be relied upon.")
:-)
See also Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz" which established that fallout shelters were built as places where the fallouts could seek refuge during the collapse of civilization. Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
I think he means the pages that haven't been touched for a long time.
Leave them alone long enough and they *could* become ancient history in the other sense ("Many scholars consider Lir and Michael to be the same person; although the internal evidence is sometimes contradictory, much of the change history was lost in the database crash of 2043, and the one surviving backup on CD (in the Vatican Library, #3483334) is partially oxidized and has too many bit errors to be relied upon.")
:-)
See also Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz" which established that fallout shelters were built as places where the fallouts could seek refuge during the collapse of civilization. Ec
hmmmm :P
--- Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles
slip form the RC and
plunge into the Wikipedia's great information
soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient
pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
No, pages from [[Special:Ancientpages]]. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On 17-06-2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote thusly :
--- Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles
slip form the RC and
plunge into the Wikipedia's great information
soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient
pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
No, pages from [[Special:Ancientpages]].
Rather [[Special: Oldest articles]] which shows how few Wikipedians use this feature and may be unaware how many articles are "left behind". We seem to look back a few days back on the RC.
I have just looked at last 1000 new articles and I have found not only one sentence articles but also 3 word articles.
I agree that the name of the article Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible is not the best one. But it tries to illustrate that probability that 3-word article will be taken over and made into superb one has fallen. We have 130,000+ articles and I feel disproportionately few people on the editorial board to look after the growing number. I suppose more people are inclined to add new articles than review and expand the existing ones. Besides it takes much more time to review and expand an article than to create one.
The majority that was disgusted with my Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible article view it as something that undermines the very nature of Wikipedia. And my intention was well-meant.
I think some new kind of statistics might shed light on the current and future trends in Wikipedia growth.
"Content can only get better" paradigm - I believe in it and see it happen every day but will it be true with, say, 260,000 articles ? Do we care about overall quality of articles or say let's have 10% the best ones and the rest be mediocre or only touched on ones.
Regards, Kpjas.
P.S please move the offending article to a new better name
Krzysztof-
I have just looked at last 1000 new articles and I have found not only one sentence articles but also 3 word articles.
We had a long discussion on wikipedia-l about how and when articles should be merged. I believe now that we have more articles than most paper encyclopedias (technically) we need to enter "phase 2" of (En-)Wikipedia's development, which is structuring, merging, improving etc. the existing material. Maybe even removing links to non-existent articles in some cases (e.g. album titles) to discourage creation of database-like stubs. Of course there are still huge gaps in our coverage (as is, the article about Catholicism doesn't even mention the Vatican), but many if not most of the essential topics have at least stub articles.
There should be a WikiProject for this phase 2 effort with clear guidelines and goals. I encourage you to start this WikiProject if you have the time and motivation to do so. I suggest the name "WikiProject Patchwork".
The majority that was disgusted with my Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible article view it as something that undermines the very nature of Wikipedia. And my intention was well-meant.
I agree with you. That's why I hacked Special:Ancientpages together in the first place. I hope it will help in improving our existing material.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
We had a long discussion on wikipedia-l about how and when articles should be merged. I believe now that we have more articles than most paper encyclopedias (technically) we need to enter "phase 2" of (En-)Wikipedia's development, which is structuring, merging, improving etc. the existing material. Maybe even removing links to non-existent articles in some cases (e.g. album titles) to discourage creation of database-like stubs. Of course there are still huge gaps in our coverage (as is, the article about Catholicism doesn't even mention the Vatican), but many if not most of the essential topics have at least stub articles.
There should be a WikiProject for this phase 2 effort with clear guidelines and goals. I encourage you to start this WikiProject if you have the time and motivation to do so. I suggest the name "WikiProject Patchwork".
Erik
Sounds good, but it shouldn't be called "phase 2". Much of our content development is still incomplete. We should focus on content development, and do WikiProject Patchwork as a side project. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
actually, I make articles as best I can, which isn't so good, and then I have people all over always reformatting, and eventually the article turns out ok, but most of them are still stubs like [[Microsoft Passport]] or [[Turn-based gaming]] or [[Goldtoken.com]]
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]
One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:
Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as possible. <br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication. If you feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone| "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.
This rule is open for debate.
Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC) or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).
Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the "Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
Regards, Kpjas.