[WikiEN-l] Re: POV forks, and "the 32K devil made me do it"

Sun Feb 27 15:31:04 UTC 2005

If people agree that the warning is too prominent, remember it can be 
edited at

[[MediaWiki:Longpagewarning]]

- the talk page has been unedited for over a year.

Pete

p.s.

One reason that the 32k was displayed more prominently than other 
problems is that it has the capacity to affect other users - if you have 
an inept browser and edit a long page you will cut off the tail of the 
article and affect others. Unicode issues only affect the person with 
the defective browser.

dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote:

> I don't know whether PJacobi is "on a hunt," but I am not at all happy 
> about the current state of the "Prem Rawat" and "Criticism of Prem 
> Rawat" article. While trying not to extend that battle here, I want to 
> make two points:
> 
> a) HYPOTHETICALLY (i.e. I DO NOT want to argue about whether Prem Rawat 
> actually is an example of this situation): SUPPOSE that there is a topic 
> that is being contentiously edited by two factions, A and B, that 
> include most of the WIkipedians actively interested in working on the 
> topic. The two factions could cut a deal in which they produce two 
> articles, one presenting faction A's viewpoint and one presenting 
> faction B's viewpoint, and agree that they will each tolerate and stay 
> out of the other faction's article provided the other faction does the 
> same. In this case, you have two POV articles--and because of the 
> agreement by the two factions and the disinterest by other Wikipedians, 
> the situation is likely to be stable.
> 
> Surely we agree that that is a VERY unsatisfactory situation, and not 
> what is meant by NPOV?
> 
> If we have to have this sort of thing, we need to figure out out a way 
> to legitimize it, e.g. with a template saying "This article represents 
> one view of a disputed issue. For the other view, see..."
> 
> b) In any case, I really dislike seeing the 32K limit being brought up 
> as justification for doing things. 32K is a reasonable _guideline,_ and 
> that articles in, say, the range 32K to 96K should be refactored 
> _eventually_. But it should not be regarded as an urgent necessity. 
> Particularly in the case of a disputed topic, the article should be left 
> to stew and mellow. _When it has reached a stable state_, the need to 
> break it up should be discussed.
> 
> But breaking up an oversized article shouldn't be a high priority. 
> Breaking up a 32 to 96K article is just _cleanup,_ and it's a _lot_ less 
> important than a lot of other cleanup. _As long as no single section_ is 
> over 32K, people with older browsers can participate actively in almost 
> every part of the editing process. About all that they cannot do is load 
> the entire article as a whole in order to make major changes in the 
> section organization.
> 
> I think the 32K limit is often used as a convenient excuse for unwise 
> breakouts--specifically, POV splits and subtrivia. ("I couldn't put the 
> vital, encyclopedic, verified fact that John Kerry flip-flopped in 
> August, 1960 at the Central Street McDonalds when he ordered a Quarter 
> Pounder _and tried to exchange it for a Quarter Pounder with 
> Cheese_--the main article is over 32K!)
> 
> The 32K limit gets an unjustified amount of attention because a warning 
> is displayed automatically. The wording of that warning ought to be 
> toned way down. This is just one of many issues involved in browser 
> compatibility, and not the most important one.
> 
> I notice that no warning is displayed about the use of Unicode 
> characters, even though these also present problems in older browsers 
> (and sometimes newer ones!) In gauging the seriousness of these issues, 
> note too that using characters outside, say, ISO Latin-1 actually 
> presents problems to people passively _viewing_ the article, whereas 
> articles over 32K are still viewable by everyone (and editable within 
> sections by everyone).
> 
> -- 
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
> Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
> Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/