[WikiEN-l] Re: article size

Fri May 20 23:44:33 UTC 2005

I think that the "suggested" 32k article limit is a useful tool for
provoking sub-articles or spinning sections off into article on their
own right. I feel like the size limit "warning" still serves a useful,
but not a necessary purpose. While our articles should be informative
as our first priority, they should also be enjoyable to read...

-- 
Seth Ilys 
   email: seth.ilys at gmail.com
   IM (aol, msn, yahoo): JehanneDaix
   blog: http://somewhereindurham.blogspot.com/ 

On 5/20/05, dpbsmith at verizon.net <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> Incidentally, article size is one area in which "Wikipedia is not
> paper" serves us poorly. In the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia
> Britannica, the article on the Bible is approximately one megabyte in
> size. That decision was presumably made on the basis of style,
> organization, and readability. You can riffle through twenty pages a
> second or more and still glimpse running heads. And the articles in the
> old Britannica are so well-written that you can sit down with them and
> read them from beginning to end.