On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Michael Peel wrote: >> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> >>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long >>> time. The >>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia >>> have >>> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and >>> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every >>> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image >>> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty. >>> >>> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong. >> >> They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location >> (Wiktionary and Commons). > > Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to > cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered. > > Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image > galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic > value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that > should be presented by the images.
In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing off the authors' photography skills. ;-) (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically, e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will decide to remove them after this email...) >> Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only >> reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they >> were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs... > > People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they > have too > little information, even while they are about a valid topic. > Sometimes, > stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic. > Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar > topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually > lost. All > of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would > have stubs. All I can say to that is that it's a great pity if that happens... Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
