[Wikipedia-l] 80,000

[Karen AKA Kajikit]

Toby Bartels wrote:
> 
> Gareth Owen wrote:
> 
> >The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> 
> >>How do they clutter the "worthwhile" entries? Wikipedia is not paper.
> 
> >RandomPages
> 
> An idea:
> Can Randompage weight the articles that it picks by their length?
> This will make *any* stub less likely to be chosen,
> arguably without giving a distorted picture of what Wikipedia is like.

It's not the length of these machine-generated articles that's at issue.
These particular ones are GOOD articles - they have all the information
we need, they're automatically spellchecked etc. There isn't anything
that needs to be done to them that's visible to someone from the other
side of the world - and therein lies the reason why they're 'cluttering'
the place up. Recent Changes and the Random button are the two primary
methods of finding articles that need work, for me at least, and these
articles cut down on the number of 'needing work' articles I can see.

I find the long and completed articles on the elements etc just as much
of a nuisance, for the same reason. If anything, I'd like an option to
search just the SHORT articles and to randomly pull up a stub that I
could work on. I know the 'short articles' listing will do it, but I've
worked through about the first six pages and the majority of the
remaining articles at the beginning of the list are the mythology stubs
that I know nothing about and can't extend. A 'random stub' (choosing
only articles under about 1000bytes) button would be a handy maintenance
tool for me, but I don't know if anyone else would want to use it.

-- 

Karen AKA Kajikit

To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.

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/