On 29/11/2010 17:59, MuZemike wrote:
Short answer: I think we have made a step in the right
direction by
getting five decently-expanded articles as a result of ten stubs.
That's my
answer also.
However, what about the ones that cannot be expanded?
That leads to my
"long answer" below:
It depends on the expandability of the remaining stubs. Are they able to
be expanded via reliable sources to a decently-sized encyclopedia
article?
Well, let's assume for the purposes of this argument that in principle
they can be. If not, they can be deleted, preferably via PROD in case
some more sources come along.
One thing I have observed about the creation of stubs
(besides
from newcomers, which normally they are "hit or miss" on expandability
due to their relative lack of experience with WP or with wikis in
general), this is assumption or even prediction that 'they can possibly
be expanded' or 'they might be some sources out there'.
I would generally find such a premise behind stub-creation as
unsatisfactory content creation/expansion; however, I come from a belief
that Wikipedia's focus should be on the amount of raw, sourced content
as opposed to the raw number of articles that can be created. To put in
a more concrete way, any given Wikipedia article is not precisely '1
unit of knowledge' (Google Knol can sue me later for ripping off their
terminology); that is, our article on "Abraham Lincoln" contains much
more verifiable information than, say, "Venezuela at the 2010 Pan
American Games".
I find something to agree with here, given that one of my
hobbyhorses is
that WP is hypertext, however much the current recognition is of authors
of *articles*. The presentation of facts is less significant in the end
than their presence on the site, in a place where they can be found.
I would, however, still welcome an answer to the original question.
There is a certain distribution of sizes of articles, and a certain more
notional distribution of "completeness percentages" - the article on
Abe is going to be how complete compared with a 600 page biography?
Charles