Alex J. Avriette wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:04:00 +0000, David Gerard dgerard@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.