[Foundation-l] Quran in Sitenotice
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Fri Jul 14 00:20:39 UTC 2006
Heema Khan wrote:
> On Urdu Wikipedia, article on Israel is very short:
> http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%DB%8C%D9%84
> I can translate it:
While the text is very short and not very well-written, one must
bear in mind that ur.wikipedia.org has a total of 1490 articles
and that every language of Wikipedia had short and bad articles at
that early stage. After submitting an article to such a small and
young wiki site, the main frustration is not spelling errors,
factual errors, slanted point of view or poor organization, but
the fact that all wikilinks are red and not blue. (In the case of
ur:Israel, there are no links in the main wikitext, so the article
still needs to be wikified.) The main "WikiProjects" at that stage
are typically to establish stubs for every country of the world
and for every day in the calendar. At around 10 or 20 thousand
articles, the WikiProjects are the years in the calendar and
taxonomies for all mammals and birds. At between 50 and 100
thousand articles, newspapers begin to write comparisons between
Wikipedia and traditional printed encyclopedias in the same
language.
Somewhere along the road, adhering to NPOV and phasing out stubs
becomes more of a concern. But it would probably miss the target
to make a big fuzz about the Urdu Wikipedia's viewpoint on Israel
(or other controversial topics) at this early stage. And I think
the same goes for this fuzz about the sitenotice. You don't need
to call the fire brigade to put out a single candle. And this
time, the house is not really on fire.
If you speak Urdu (which I don't), by all means, help to improve
the articles, and help to write more stubs. After 10,000 articles
are created, start a WikiProject to identify and weed out stubs.
But just like a gardener, you cannot start weeding before the crop
has started to grow.
The Swedish Wikipedia was initially very enthusiastic about the
chance to copy articles from an old out-of-copyright encyclopedia
(very similar to the 1911 Britannica). It took quite some time
before the problems became apparent: Negroes were described as an
inferior race, almost like animals, and old Swedish kings were
attributed god-like virtues. You can't really write that today.
Fortunately, this sorted itself out long before the newspapers
started to compare the Swedish Wikipedia to contemporary printed
encyclopedias.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list