[Wikipedia-l] Re: Limits to the non-paperiness of Wikipedia?

[Karl Eichwalder]

Oliver Pereira <omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk> writes:

> It makes the count bigger, which is a *good* thing. :) As for comparisons,
> if you check other popular encyclopaedias, you'll find that many of them
> have articles a lot shorter than 20 Kb.

Those probably are toys.

Yes, short articles are okay as well (it depends on the subject).
Allowing short articles does not mean the article on Shakespeare, say,
should consist of 1001 fragments (I didn't read the article on S.,
though...).

Discussing these issue in general is worthless.

-- 
                                                         |      ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |    _-\_<,
ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home)               |   (*)/'(*)