Lars wrote:
I think you should add 200 articles that are not yet written to each 20 that you found. [...] there is also a great need to add more articles, and in my personal opinion it is better to add a stub than not.
I disagree. If you spend a weekend researching a topic on E2, EB, Google or in a library and then write a well-rounded 4 paragraph article on it, you will have improved the world and yourself. If you spend the weekend creating 200 stubs instead, you will have accomplished precisely nothing.
A stub does not tell the reader anything that they didn't know already or that they couldn't have found out in 2 minutes on the internet. If the stub ever shows up at the top of a Google result list, it will actually waste the reader's time and lower the general perception of Wikipedia's quality. I can't see any possible use for stubs.
Axel
Axel Boldt axel@uni-paderborn.de writes:
I can't see any possible use for stubs.
I agree with everything Axel wrote in the above message. Stubs are embarrassing.
At 06:11 PM 27/08/02 +0100, Gareth Owen wrote:
Axel Boldt axel@uni-paderborn.de writes:
I can't see any possible use for stubs.
I agree with everything Axel wrote in the above message. Stubs are embarrassing.
Hear hear! We say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and then we go and have articles like [[Robert Braden]] and [[Ununpentium]] which would get laughed out of any half-decent dictionary as practically useless.
I think Wikipedia would be better served by having edit links pointing to an empty page, rather than misleading people into thinking there's some kind of useful information there.
|From: Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@ualberta.ca |Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:49:45 -0600 | |At 06:11 PM 27/08/02 +0100, Gareth Owen wrote: |>Axel Boldt axel@uni-paderborn.de writes: |> |> > I can't see any possible use for stubs. |> |>I agree with everything Axel wrote in the above message. |>Stubs are embarrassing. | |Hear hear! We say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and then we go and |have articles like [[Robert Braden]] and [[Ununpentium]] which would get |laughed out of any half-decent dictionary as practically useless. | |I think Wikipedia would be better served by having edit links pointing to |an empty page, rather than misleading people into thinking there's some |kind of useful information there. |
Robert Braden's mother must be so proud.
However, I stuck up for [[Ununennium]] in votes for deletion the other day and even added a bit to it and I think it was useful information. There will be an [[Ununpentium]] some day, for a microsecond, and eventually it will pick up a better name, but in the meantime, it seems to me that to understand the transuranic elements at all, you have to understand that some of them don't exist yet. But I'd have to say that my article on [[Ununennium]] is much better than the one pn [[Ununpentium]]. I did wonder, while writing it, how much is known about a non-existent element before it exists, and suggested in my Summary that someone more knowledgeable should take a look at it.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
At 09:19 PM 27/08/02 -0400, Tom Parmenter wrote:
|From: Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@ualberta.ca |Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:49:45 -0600 |Hear hear! We say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and then we go and |have articles like [[Robert Braden]] and [[Ununpentium]] which would get |laughed out of any half-decent dictionary as practically useless.
Robert Braden's mother must be so proud.
I'm not saying that Robert Braden shouldn't have an article in Wikipedia, if he is indeed noteworthy. I am saying that an article which consists solely of "Editor of RFC 1123.", and which is linked to only from a line in the article [[RFC 1123]] which reads "Robert Braden (editor).", is a fairly useless article all things considered. :)
The RFC 1123 article is itself pretty sparse on information, though not quite as bad.
But I'd have to say that my article on [[Ununennium]] is much better than the one pn [[Ununpentium]].
Agreement, Ununennium looks pretty good.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I think Wikipedia would be better served by having edit links pointing to an empty page, rather than misleading people into thinking there's some kind of useful information there.
Maybe each article could be assigned points from 0 (doesn't exist), 1 (very short stub), 2 (20 words or a single comma), up to 5 (brilliant prose). Then each user could set a threshold so only links pointing to 3 or more are rendered as links. This would allow stubs for people who are involved in writing articles while hiding them from people who just want to browse. (This is an idea from the design of Slashdot.)
"Lars Aronsson" lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Maybe each article could be assigned points from 0 (doesn't exist), 1 (very short stub), 2 (20 words or a single comma), up to 5 (brilliant prose). Then each user could set a threshold so only links pointing to 3 or more are rendered as links. This would allow stubs for people who are involved in writing articles while hiding them from people who just want to browse. (This is an idea from the design of Slashdot.)
That's a very interesting idea. I suspect it would be more appropriate for a Wikipedia derivative than Wikipedia itself.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org