Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip>
Actually, Snowspinner provided an example of
'1' to start the
thread (well, one of the threads): /Elf-Only Inn/. As a
webcomics fan myself (although I don't like or read /Elf-Only
Inn/ itself), I can certainly see his point[0].
<snip>
[0] And I'm hanging out for the time when
Tycho and Gabe get
their own entries on en-WP. That would obviously be cruft, but
I'd like to hear those who want minor characters from movies to
have pages to explain *why* major characters from /Penny Arcade/
don't belong.
It's about how much can be written on the subject of the article.
Seriously, how much needs to be written about a minor (or even
major) character in a movie, if they are known for nothing outside
of that movie, and the portrayal of the character in the movie was
unremarkable?
Does it matter?
Yes. People look at the articles and say "oh, they've only got 2 lines
on such and such, and they want me to tell them about it!? What sort of
encyclopedia is this?" That is the problem with articles which will
never be (and in some cases, /can never be/) anything more than stubs.
So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does
is that such
entries damage Wikipedia's credibility.
It does. The more stubs, the more likely people are to miss the good
quality stuff.
With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website
in the world,
I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues.
Oh, I agree. Wikipedia is still only as credible as the rest of the
internet - that is, any idiot could have written it.
There may still be some whiney critics around, but
no-one is
listening to them, clearly!
You call librarians and educators "whiney critics whom no-one listens to"?
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \