[Wikipedia-l] the REAL solution to useless stubs and micro-stubs

[The Cunctator]

On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 19:58, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
> If it's garbage delete it.
> 
> Full stop.
> 
> Deleting a pitiful little stub that contains no useful content is NOT
> vandalism, and I defend my right and Mav's right and anyone else's right
> to do it. If you have been around for more than a few WEEKS you probably
> know what's garbage when you see it... But most people are so afraid of
> being accused of vandalism that they won't touch them. It's not
> helping... 

Let's tone down the rhetoric. a) There are no intrinsic rights on
Wikipedia; it is a benevolent dictatorship, not a civic nation-state. b)
Several of the detractors of rapid deletion of weak stubs have been
around for more than a few weeks.

> Having these pathetic microstubs doesn't make people write more - it
> just makes people think that 'oh, we have an article on 'X', so I'll
> look at it later...' instead of saying 'Oh! A red link to X! I'm
> surprised nobody's written anything yet - I'll go and make an article.' 

As has been evidenced by the discussion on the list, people differ on
their reaction to "pathetic microstubs".

<snip examples of microstubs vs. sufficient entries>

> Let's get on with the important stuff now... we've wasted enough time on
> the subject of stubs. 

Since there is evident disagreement on this issue, the topic is an
important one for the community. 

Finally, rather than debating the merits of the various positions held
by people (and there is a spectrum), it would make sense to discuss the
technical changes that will potentially circumvent the basic sources of
disagreement. 

I do hope you're willing to accept that everyone (however they formulate
their arguments) is attempting in good faith to express their point of
view, and that each point of view has some validity. 

I have not seen anyone on this issue express a position that seemed
irrational. 

So let's work together.