3 ms·
They used to use the term "Stub" for brief pages that weren't full articles yet and they do put warnings on articles that don't meet certain quality standards,
by astine 6y ago
They used to use the term "Stub" for brief pages that weren't full articles yet and they do put warnings on articles that don't meet certain quality standards, though I think that's different that what you're talking about here.
- domador 6y agoThere's some overlap, though not full equivalency. Stubs presumably fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision, even if they haven't been fleshed out into full entries. The entries I'm referring to are mostly ones which would run afoul of Wikipedia's notability criterion. Going back to the brand management issue, I'd be OK with deleted articles and their history being moved to another wiki with a different URL, with a name that is not "Wikipedia". Cookies or some other mechanism could be used to manage user/session preferences so that users who want to to be redirected to this other, questionable-page wiki can be redirected when they try to access pages that don't fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision. I'd be fine with having huge in-your face warnings about the likely lack of quality or veracity of such entries... just as long as I can access that content.