Hello all,
I think this is a debate/discussion that has been a long time coming.
We need to have this.
Many may not realize this, but there is a HUGE disparity between the
stub ratio (related to average article length) in the different
Wikipedias.
http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=ratio_asc
For a little visual demonstration of the fact:
http://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random (Random page on Cebuano
Wikipedia, with the "stubbiest" stub ratio) -- clicking randompage 10
times, I got 9 different stubs about communes in France and one about
a place in the Philippines
I think that there has been too much emphasis on article count in the
past, causing people to think that it is much more important than it
really is and wanting to inflate it by adding hundreds or even
thousands of "hollow" articles with little information on semi-obscure
topics that probably won't be read at all by anyone ever, and if they
are, will not be useful.
Now, I know I sound critical with that sentiment, but hey, who am I to
say that it could not be useful to have those stubs?
But I do think we should discuss it... is it better to have 1000 stubs
or 100 long well-written articles?
And also here's a little nudge to everyone... why not go to
Special:Shortpages or Special:Random on your favourite Wiki and expand
some articles? How about it?
Mark
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.