I beg to differ, Dan.
My local mailbox is verifiable but certainly not worth a place in Wikipedia.
On 9/11/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/09/05, Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
More on mergism and "cruft": what I
don't quite understand is the
opposition many people have to merging small articles into larger
ones: schools into school district articles, fictional characters into
book articles, city landmarks into city articles.
I would imagine because smaller articles are more likely to be
expanded (people may look at a long article on lots of things and say
"ooo, that's long enough already").
With some articles you suggest merging and the creators respond as if
you wanted to delete the article entirely. I regard merging as an
improvement: information wants context, in order to be useful; maybe
it doesn't add to your article count, but it adds to the usefulness of
the encyclopedia.
You don't have to merge articles to provide context!
"Wiki is not paper" is often cited -- but it's a stronger argument for
merging information than leaving small articles separate: since Wiki
is not paper, redirects are easy, and we do not have to worry about
someone having to pull out separate volumes and flip pages if directed
elsewhere. We don't have to make sure there's a scrap of information
at every conceivable search term; that's what redirects and the search
function are for. Articles that are "cruft" on their own (and I do try
to use the term only jokingly!) can be a helpful bit of detail in a
larger picture.
It doesn't really *hurt* to have lots of small trivial articles (I'm
deliberately ignoring referencing issues here; dpbsmith already made
that position perfectly clear), but it's a case where the whole is
indeed generally greater than the sum of its parts. Not only that, a
large article which gets many visitors is far easier to maintain --
keep updated, patrol for vandalism, etc. -- than a collection of small
articles which get relatively few visitors each.
I'd argue the opposite - vandalism is harder to spot in oft-edited
pages, as if it's not picked up quickly, it's hidden on watchlists by
newer edits. It's well-known that collections of smaller articles are
easier to maintain.
Also, readers would most likely only read the same pieces of
information in a large merged article as they would have seperate
smaller ones - there's no particular reason why larger articles should
be updated more. If anything the opposite - larger articles often look
more "complete".
Where such an article can't be merged into
something larger, it's
probably because it is too trivial for the next broader level of
detail and probably shouldn't be included at all (for example, I
wouldn't even be worth mentioning in my university's article: it would
rightly get deleted were a sentence about me to be added) -- or if it
should be included, indicative that we have a big gaping hole
somewhere in our coverage and need to write the article for the next
broader level (for example, an individual folk song from a country on
which there is no "music of X" article yet).
What should and shouldn't be an article is covered by wp:verifiability and NOR.
Dan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l