[Wikipedia-l] Limits to the non-paperiness of Wikipedia?

Wed May 28 22:10:51 UTC 2003

--- Oliver Pereira <omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> But isn't this length business just a matter of personal taste?
> Personally, I find long articles quite off-putting. [[Charles
> Darwin]],
> for example, only just barely qualifies as a decently sized article
> according to Erik, while I think it could do with being split into
> separate sections.

As Olivier, I agree. Length of an article is dictated by the subject
matter of the article. I don't expect an article dealing with
architecture in Paris to be short. Nor do I expect an article about
Hollywood Blvd to be very long. 

I think there is a trend here in the W to automate/codify most
mundane things. This, I feel, is a trap. The W is different *because*
it is written, edited, and massaged by humans beings. 

I suggest also that while some rules might be good overall, some
article will fall outside of the norm, and will have to be dealt with
in a manner sensible to the subject.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com