On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 19:58, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
If it's garbage delete it.
Full stop.
Deleting a pitiful little stub that contains no useful content is NOT vandalism, and I defend my right and Mav's right and anyone else's right to do it. If you have been around for more than a few WEEKS you probably know what's garbage when you see it... But most people are so afraid of being accused of vandalism that they won't touch them. It's not helping...
Let's tone down the rhetoric. a) There are no intrinsic rights on Wikipedia; it is a benevolent dictatorship, not a civic nation-state. b) Several of the detractors of rapid deletion of weak stubs have been around for more than a few weeks.
Having these pathetic microstubs doesn't make people write more - it just makes people think that 'oh, we have an article on 'X', so I'll look at it later...' instead of saying 'Oh! A red link to X! I'm surprised nobody's written anything yet - I'll go and make an article.'
As has been evidenced by the discussion on the list, people differ on their reaction to "pathetic microstubs".
<snip examples of microstubs vs. sufficient entries>
Let's get on with the important stuff now... we've wasted enough time on the subject of stubs.
Since there is evident disagreement on this issue, the topic is an important one for the community.
Finally, rather than debating the merits of the various positions held by people (and there is a spectrum), it would make sense to discuss the technical changes that will potentially circumvent the basic sources of disagreement.
I do hope you're willing to accept that everyone (however they formulate their arguments) is attempting in good faith to express their point of view, and that each point of view has some validity.
I have not seen anyone on this issue express a position that seemed irrational.
So let's work together.