Hi Andre,
Your English is actually very good :-)
I think the Friulian Wikipedia should be a shining example for other
Wikipedias -- since the very beginning, it has had good quality
articles, written in official orthography, and dedicated contributors,
even when they didn't have much time for fur.wiki. (I have kept an eye
on it because I helped place the initial request for it and I think
the language is beautiful)
Your attitude of quality over quantity is unique among Wikis of that
size and deserves applause and attention, especially as you have paved
the way for the Friulian language into the 21st century.
Mark
On 30/04/07, A. Decorte <adecorte(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I talk as an admin of Friulian Wiki (fur.wiki).
I don't like
thousand of stubs, I prefer less articles, but more complete. This
doesn't mean as complete as in big Wikis, because it would take me too
much time to translate a full article from, say, en.wiki, I usually
translate instead from the Wikipedia in Catalan, since they seem to
have a good balance between length and completeness. I also think
every wiki should rather add stubs that have good chances to develop.
We are currently adding the States of the world, since this is a
subject which is pretty well covered in other languages. I instead
said no to adding as stubs the 8000 "communites" of Italy. That
addition could bring us to the magic 10 000 threshold (we are at 2000)
but most of those articles IMHO will stay stub forever, since even in
Italian wiki they're in this state.
What we are focusing on are articles about local themes, personalities
and so on, stuff that you can't find elsewhere, and so you have to
create from scratch, but are pretty interesting for casual users; we
also had some media exposure, and so there's room for more
development. I'm proud that we have already the biggest collection of
text in Friulian language, and we are following the official
orthography (that is very important, I wouldn't even start if there
wasn't an unique orthography. Cope with different versions is really
too much work).
Hope you can understand my bad English ;-)
Andre
On 4/28/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra(a)ukr.net> wrote:
But I do
think we should discuss it... is it better to have 1000
stubs or 100 long well-written articles?
I originally rated stubs as no more than a trick to fake a higher article
count. I have to admit that stubs succeeded in capturing activity, people
start adding stuff, those who cannot write properly add pictures, but there
is a quantity of activity they capture.
Same applies to red links, although a stub seems to be more immediate in
asking participation. On the other hand, stubs grow quite casually and
eventually need to be rewritten into a proper article, because they do
capture stuff but have no underlying scheme.
I suppose there's no general rule, though. It would be easier to judge if we
could have a curve about "stub growth in time". Ours started to grow some
4-5 months after being made, some are just moving now after a year and some
are still empty stubs. Intuitively I'd say some 30-40% of them did capture
material (it was about 300-500 pieces about botanic and zoology).
Maybe it would have been better if we had used a wider distribution as per
subject. Who knows?
Bèrto 'd Sèra
Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l