At 06:56 PM 8/25/02 -0700, Karl wrote:
--- "Michael R. Irwin"
<mri_icboise(a)surfbest.net> wrote:
I think that having the Wikipedia Guard or
Militia
routinely deleting empty good titled articles may
only slow down the growth in bread and depth of
the Wikipedia. Some people may like organizing
the link structures and establishing good initial titles
and interconnections. Why should this contribution
be routinely deleted? How much subsequent work is
then lost from contributors who while browsing may
choose to add an easy paragraph but who will not
undertake an entire stub and the effort required
to link it appropriately into an entire encyclopedia?
It is interesting that the debate about article deletion turns on the
contributing habits of other people, not ourselves. Do any of us go
around creating poor stubs, content-free articles, or other stuff that
is a candidate for deletion? It seems not, i.e. it seems that nobody
on the mailing list is suggesting deleting any article created by
anyone else on the mailing list. Apparently, no matter how varied in
substance and style our contributions may be, we all recognize that we
are all doing useful work.
Actually, I'd favor deleting some of Fredbauder's
stubs, since I
think entries like "a large city in southern Arizona" as the entire article
reduce the chance of anyone seeing the gap and writing a good article
on the subject.
<snip some good discussion of timing and the effect on new contributors
of having articles edited rather than removed>
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org