[Wikipedia-l] Big ... bigger ... the biggest ... encyclopaedicarticles ... (was quantity vs. quality)

[Mark Clements]

"Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:f3fedb0d0705040954p70cca3b4sc796820cdee40882 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 04/05/07, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk>
wrote:
> > "Sabine Cretella" <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote
in
> > message news:463A4A52.20407 at yahoo.it...
> > > I repeat: each article, even of only one sentence can be of high value
> > > for somebody searching for information ... don't exclude the small
ones,
> > > please and stop counting numbers ... it will help you a lot. We are
not
> > > in competition - we are co-operating projects, that's all there is to
it.
> > >
> >
> > Having just been in the position of having to defend an article that was
> > voted "medium importance for WikiProject Russia" from deletion, I am in
> > total agreement with you.  There are too many people following "process"
> > without using their brains...
>
> As an aside, that classification (in general terms) should be taken
> with a grain of salt - many people/projects, for various reasons, just
> Don't Use the "low importance" classification in rating articles. So
> "medium" may well mean "utterly trivial but not entirely
> irrelevant"...

...and to me 'not entirely irrelevant' means worthy of inclusion.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)