"Maury Markowitz" <maury_markowitz(a)hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:BAY141-F20F0CA5B8F7FE92233C356884C0@phx.gbl...
>The point being that I would expect stub article
creation to be pretty
high
>in new Wikipedias, and to tail off as the
Wikipedia in question comes to
be
seen as more
authoritative.
Authoritative? Or just more bureaucratic? I personally believe the problem
is the later.
Authoritative. This has nothing to do with the internal systems, but with
external impressions. If a user thinks of Wikipedia as an authoratitive
resource, they are unlikely to add stubs because they assume that the
content is already there (they just haven't managed to find it) or has been
deliberately omitted.
It's the same kind of argument by which scrabble players will say a word is
invalid because it is not in their dictionary. It is a falacious argument,
but a common one.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)