On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Carcharoth<[email protected]> wrote: > Only three of those 24 articles, in my opinion, have moved much beyond > being a single line article or a few lines at most, even though > impeccably referenced. You might say "go and help expand those > articles" (and I might well do that). But there is a subtle difference > between the motivation to write a new article and to expand an > existing one. There absolutely *shouldn't* be that differerence, but > human nature being what it is, that is a factor, I fear.
I've made a hundred or so stubs. A few have been expanded by others. A very few have been expanded massively (particularly [[Calcot Manor]]. But I think your premise is wrong. Say I turn a redlink into a tiny stub. You're assuming that some other editor was going to turn that redlink into a big article, and now refrains from editing it because it's not a redlink any more. I suggest that he picks a different redlink instead. That is: Your theory: Before: 2 redlinks After: 1 redlink, 1 tiny stub You prefer: After: 1 redlink, 1 big article My theory: Before: 2 redlinks After: 1 tiny stub, 1 big article. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
