Currently, the introductory sentences on the main page read
Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have 43165 articles. We want to make over 100,000 complete articles, so let's get to work!
I find the 100,000 article sentence out of place:
* The goal is to create a complete, high-quality and free encyclopedia. Nobody knows whether that requires 80,000 or 800,000 articles. Nor should anybody care.
* The "100,000 article goal" fosters an unhealthy obsession with statistics, and I'm afraid it can lead people to create stubs, just to help bring the project "closer to this goal", which is of course not its goal at all.
I vote for simply removing this "100,000 article" sentence.
Axel
Axel Boldt wrote:
Currently, the introductory sentences on the main page read
Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have 43165 articles. We want to make over 100,000 complete articles, so let's get to work!
I find the 100,000 article sentence out of place:
- The goal is to create a complete, high-quality and free
encyclopedia. Nobody knows whether that requires 80,000 or 800,000 articles. Nor should anybody care.
- The "100,000 article goal" fosters an unhealthy obsession with
statistics, and I'm afraid it can lead people to create stubs, just to help bring the project "closer to this goal", which is of course not its goal at all.
I vote for simply removing this "100,000 article" sentence.
I can see your point, but I don't see it as much of a concern. Building bulk is fine as a short term goal. If the projections that I made a few days ago are at all meaningful we should reach that 100,000 early in 2003. Let's leave it in until we reach that goal then not replace it with any new numerical goal at that time.
Eclecticology
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 09:25:20 Ray Saintonge wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
Currently, the introductory sentences on the main page read
Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have 43165 articles. We want to make over 100,000 complete articles, so let's get to work!
I find the 100,000 article sentence out of place:
- The goal is to create a complete, high-quality and free
encyclopedia. Nobody knows whether that requires 80,000 or 800,000 articles. Nor should anybody care.
- The "100,000 article goal" fosters an unhealthy obsession with
statistics, and I'm afraid it can lead people to create stubs, just to help bring the project "closer to this goal", which is of course not its goal at all.
I vote for simply removing this "100,000 article" sentence.
I can see your point, but I don't see it as much of a concern. Building bulk is fine as a short term goal. If the projections that I made a few days ago are at all meaningful we should reach that 100,000 early in 2003. Let's leave it in until we reach that goal then not replace it with any new numerical goal at that time.
The 100,000 article goal (or perhaps marker) will be an interesting point, because that point will provide an excellent place to look around and see how the 'Pedia is progressing.
Not that I'm harbouring any delusions that it'll be "complete" that that stage, but it will a) be cause for a celebration, and might b) give some indication of the asymptotic size of the project.
Eclecticology wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
I vote for simply removing this "100,000 article" sentence.
I can see your point, but I don't see it as much of a concern. Building bulk is fine as a short term goal. If the projections that I made a few days ago are at all meaningful we should reach that 100,000 early in 2003. Let's leave it in until we reach that goal then not replace it with any new numerical goal at that time.
But we will *not* reach that goal in 2003 or (I predict) any time soon! The page says (in '' IIRC) 100,000 *complete* articles. I think that it's a fine goal for the future (however arbitrary), although I still think that it will only confuse newcomers, who may not notice the crucial "complete" (however emphasised). So I'm with Axel; remove it.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org