[Wikipedia-l] What makes a worthwhile article?

[Karen AKA Kajikit]

I think it comes down to one thing - how much information does it
provide? Not necessarily 'what information am I personally interested
in' because my tastes don't agree with everyone else's... but how much
information is there that someone else will find potentially useful? I
don't think there's any more essential merit in an article about the
'Outer Mongolian horned lizard' or the planet Venus than there is in one
on 'custard' or 'love-letters'. They could all be potentially useful to
somebody, if they are written properly. 

Going back to highschool, in English we were taught that writing was
supposed to consider the five 'W's - Who, What, When, Where, and Why? If
a wikipedia article follows that policy then I don't see how it can go
wrong. I'd think we can also add another one - how? I would see 'how to
keep budgerigars as a pet without killing them' as being a logical
extension of the article on budgies. 

I've posted articles on food and recipes to the wikipedia... and no
doubt I'll do more of it, because again I don't see the essential
difference between telling you what an ingredient is and where it comes
from, and telling you how to use it. The good thing about the wikipedia
is that you can do both... 

-- 

Karen AKA Kajikit

And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' - 
and so He made the kitten.

Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating 
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/

Love and huggles to all!