"Wesley Sheldahl" wsheldahl@iglou.com schrieb:
That's exactly right. If a set of articles seem out of proportion, it would be far better to add more to the smaller articles, then to cut material from the larger ones for no other reason than that someone had worked hard to make them more complete or comprehensive. Wikipedia is not paper. Over time, this shouldn't be a significant problem.
I certainly think it would. If someone is going to make 50 extensive articles on otherwise insignificant members of their volleyball clubs, Wikipedia is not going to be improved by doing the same for all other sport clubs in the world as well. More is not necessarily better. It can sometimes be significantly worse.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
"Wesley Sheldahl" wsheldahl@iglou.com schrieb:
That's exactly right. If a set of articles seem out of proportion, it would be far better to add more to the smaller articles, then to cut material from the larger ones for no other reason than that someone had worked hard to make them more complete or comprehensive. Wikipedia is not paper. Over time, this shouldn't be a significant problem.
I certainly think it would. If someone is going to make 50 extensive articles on otherwise insignificant members of their volleyball clubs, Wikipedia is not going to be improved by doing the same for all other sport clubs in the world as well. More is not necessarily better. It can sometimes be significantly worse.
IIRC, we have already limited additions to "encyclopedic contents", which would separate between amateur volleyball players and religous figures ;-)
Magnus
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org