Alex J. Avriette wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:04:00 +0000, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Indeed. keats appears to be starting from a
personal distaste and
>then claiming this will be the destruction of Wikipedia. I note a
>curious lack of substantiating, ahh, numbers. keats, do you have any?
First off, you can call me "Alex". That is
my name.
Sorry. Alex.
Second, I do not have any numbers. I said that I felt
that we had some
problems. I proposed some solutions, and gave my analysis of said
problems.
[...]
You're wasting my and the foundation's money
by doing so. FIx the
architecture and you reduce the cost of operation.
It was that you spent five and a half paragraphs (618 words) decrying
fancruft and positing that the problem was too many articles, presumably
caused primarily by fancruft (I'm presuming from the 618 words leading
up to saying it was overloading the system). This seemed a somewhat novel
argument against fancruft, and I recall asking a dev on IRC (think it was
JamesDay, not sure) if too many articles was in fact a source of our
problems, and being told no.
So yes: since it's an anti-fancruft diatribe with blame on the end, I'm
going to ask for your numbers. And if you come back and say you have no
numbers but instead give seven more vituperative paragraphs, I'll probably
assume the sky is not in fact falling in the manner you describe.
Let me put it more simply:
1. Alex, are you *seriously* claiming excess small articles will hasten the
downfall of Wikipedia?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
2. If "yes", do you have any numbers?
[ ] Yes, here they are
[ ] No
- d.