stubification to the max! (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Defamatory Biographies - another problem looming forWikipedia?)

Wed Dec 21 19:15:02 UTC 2005

Mark Gallagher wrote:

> Stub templates, as far as I'm concerned, are the domain of WSS.  Not our
> problem.

Indeed :-) If they want to organise every short article, I'm happy to
let them!

>If I'm willing to go the extra mile and add exact stub
> templates, I will; if I'm not, I'll just put {{stub}} and let them sort
> it out.

I must confess that I do this too ;-)

>  If we don't like how stub categorising is handled, the solution
> is to either participate in WSS and argue with *them*, or to simply
> refuse to participate and stick to plain-jane {{stub}}.  It's not to
> deliberately mess around the work they're doing (as you're proposing,
> and SPUI received a block for a while back for doing).

It's not entirely clear to me why some admins seem to regard SPUI as
target practice. He's brash and forthright and bold (sometimes too
bold), and is an ex-GNAA we borged, but as per the bottom of [[WP:NPA]],
no-one is fair game and boldness isn't a block-on-sight offence.

> It depends how you define "drek".  If "drek" means unsalvagable, then
> I'd agree, no more than 20-30%.  If it means "crap", then (before anon
> users were prevented from creating new articles), I'd say easily 90% of
> new articles created by anons were crap and in need of cleanup, if not
> necessarily nuking from orbit.

Before anons creating articles was switched off, 2000 out of 4000 new
articles a day were getting speedied. What are the numbers now?

- d.