User:Eddie891/sandbox/Quality v. Quantity

Wikipedians are constantly debating about the merits of quality articles or just having more. For editors who are here, please do answer at least some of the questions below.

• So...More Quality Articles, or More Stubs? And Why?

• Yes and yes. Most articles start as a Stub, so, of course I support Stub creation. At the same time, the quality of most articles would benefit from improvement so I support article improvement; ever little bit helps. Not every editor is interested in or capable of creating a new article. Likewise, not every editor is able to improve articles even by one class. I take the long view. Wikipedia is only 17 years old. There's lots of time ahead of us for more articles and for improving the existing one. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that much depends on the topic of the article. I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia writing about people, culture, architecture and cities. In nearly all these cases, I try to reach a reasonable standard of quality from the start, aiming for at least 300 words of properly sourced running text. But I also think it is important to cover people and places of real significance in far more detail, expanding articles up to several thousand words, despite all the time this takes. It is also rewarding to help others expand their articles in areas of mutual interest. That's basically what Wikipedia is all about: synergy and collaboration. On the other hand, a stub is certainly better than no information at all. Short articles, even one liners, are useful for identifying, say, the location of villages in remote parts of Africa or for giving the essentials of those who are active in sports or politics. I believe the quantity increases stem from the recognition editors receive when they create new articles on Wikipedia rather when they contribute to improving existing articles. As a result, there are a huge number of short articles on important topics which have hung around for years without any significant additions. One of the reasons seems to be that all article creations are listed for each editor while it is not until an article reaches GA or higher that an editor's additional efforts can be seen. Only when there are contests specifically aimed at article improvement or de-stubbing can any real progress be seen. It would be interesting to hear of any other initiatives aimed at achieving significant increases in article quality, as I'm sure that is what we would all like to see.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Both. There's a lot of stuff that still needs coverage. And I'm of the attitude that anything, however small, that provides coverage of a notable subject is worthwhile. That said...quality is always preferable, given the cirumstances. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am obviously biased given my past work, but I think that developing quality articles should be prioritized over creating stubs. While it is certainly true that stubs help increase representation and that they are important work, Wikipedia already has a reputation, especially among academics, as being unpredictable with regards to accuracy and reliability. Extended engagement with reliable sources to write a quality article helps prevent people from finding one sensationalized source that leads them to introduce that misinformation into the body of an article, where it may linger for weeks, months, or years without being corrected. See Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Notable_incidents; the project has a history of errors that can ripple outward into society itself. ceranthor 14:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• How short of an article is too short?

• Depends on the subject. There are articles that can be only a few bytes long, but cover all aspects of the topic adequately. There can be longer articles that don't even scratch the surface. It all depends on the subject. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Should there be a minimum amount length of an article?

• No. Every case is unique, and I don't think any sort of blanket rule is useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• How about a bot to mass contribute articles?

• Many many years ago, not too long after I first started out on Wikipedia, I wasted several hours of my life and my joy and sanity arguing about this topic. I was at some education forum or other, driving myself crazy arguing that the education people should not create a separate and unique article for each and every high school and elementary school on the planet. Those pages, I argued, belonged on Geocities (remember Geocities?), not in an encyclopedia. Of course they won. One person made an appeal to emotion: "Just think about the feelings of the child who goes to Wikipedia and can't find an article for her or his school!" It's an identity issue, and people do not give up on identity issues, because they are defending their tribe. Then much later I spent a much shorter time (only a couple posts I think) getting sucked into the Anthropogenic global warming debate, when I had an epiphany: the people on both sides were idiots. Deep in the heart of the debate, people are motivated to argue about AGW because it's really another profoundly tribal thing, though it's got a science-y wrapper. And then again (and I made a userbox to put on on my userpage about this one, but later deleted it, because "meh") I was sucked into a debate in which people argued their city or state had its on own full-blown linguistic dialect based on ridiculously teensy-weensy little vocabulary distinctions. Because local papers had picked up the idea (it's a cute idea, and once again, it's a tribal thing), the article was kept and as far as I know still exists. If you're seeing a pattern here, points to you. There are two Wikipedias, or at least two: something that at least attempts to resemble a real encyclopedia (with highly variable success), and something that is an outgrowth of tribal affiliations. The latter cannot—repeat, cannot, period, ever— be stopped, but only slowed down temporarily or altered trivially. Because people do not give up on identity issues. Ever. So my words here are pointless (unless they help someone avoid wasting their time arguing). And this article is pointless. Because it's a tribal thing, and people just don't give up. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• You know my thoughts on this. :-) Depends on the subject...but for certain things, such as geographic articles and, potentially, species articles, it could provide a decent framework from which other editors can work. I know it's been done before, and would welcome a change to try it again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)