6 ms·

> The only people who would need this information are botanists I think that looking up plant species are exactly the kind of thing people would want to use an

> The only people who would need this information are botanists I think that looking up plant species are exactly the kind of thing people would want to use an encyclopedia for.

vacri 12y ago
These are (almost) one-sentence articles. They're not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. If anything, they should be in a 'list' article format. If you want these kind of one-sentence descriptors, they would be better served in a specialist publication.
- baddox 12y ago
  If one-sentence articles are considered a problem, that seems like a reasonable choice for Wikipedia to make, but it would apply to human-written and bot-written articles.
  - vacri 12y ago
    It does apply, regardless of the source of the article. Wikipedia doesn't like stub articles.
    - frik 12y ago
      Most articles started as stubs. At the moment many language versions of Wikipedia have different opinions about stubs. e.g. german wikipedia don't allow stubs anymore and the admins delete & reverts more pages every day than new ones are created. It's maybe a cultural problem as such admins identify themself with 'their articles' and don't allow any changes.
      - dalke 12y ago
        The question of course is in how to determine when a short article is a stub. Some short entries are sufficiently complete for the purposes of WP, whose English guidelines say "there are some subjects about which very little can be written." Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muati > Muati is an obscure local god in the Sumerian pantheon. He is associated in some texts with the mythical island paradise of Dilmun, and becomes syncretised with Nabu. That's unlikely to get much longer. For one, the "Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings ..." says "Muati, a god about whom we know very little."
- dalke 12y ago
  Why isn't it appropriate for an encyclopaedia? For example, the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica's complete entry for "denim" is "(an abbreviation of the serge de Nimes), the name originally given to a kind of serge. It is now applies to a stout twilled cloth made in various colours, usually of cotton, and used for overalls, &c." The entry for "Gimli" is "In Scandinavian mythology, the great hall of heaven whither the righteous will go to spend eternity." It's not hard to find more examples. But I don't think people considered the EB less of an encyclopaedia for its use of one-sentence descriptors. The heart of the matter is that there's precious little difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Indeed, the EB's full name is "The Encyclopædia Britannica: a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information" To double check that it's not limited to the EB, I looked in Harmsworth's Universal encyclopedia. The entry for "fulcrum" is "(Lat. fulcrum, a prop) Fixed point in the mechanical system of a lever about which the lever can rotate. See Lever." The entry for "gumboil" is "Small abscess on the gum arising in most cases from decay at the root of a tooth." See http://menvall.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/on-wikipedias-attempt-to-breake-out-of-objectivity-what-is-an-encyclopedia/ http://menvall.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/on-wikipedias-attemp... for an analysis of the distinction between the two, and the conclusion that "everything that is included in a dictionary also can be included in an encyclopedia, whereas all that is included in an encyclopedia either can or can’t be included in a dictionary. This relation is, however, completely misunderstood by some editors of Wikipedia." (Had you written that it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia, than that's a different issue. I speak now only of the broad category of "encyclopedia".) Triple-checking, the entry for "gumboil" in Wikipedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumboil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumboil) redirects to "Intraoral dental sinus". The complete entry is two sentences long: > Intraoral dental sinus (also termed a parulis and commonly, a gumboil) is an oral lesion characterized by a soft erythematous papule (red spot) that develops on the alveolar process in association with a non-vital tooth and accompanying dental abscess.[1] A parulis is made up of inflamed granulation tissue. By your definition, this "(almost) one-sentence" article should be removed from WP, no?
  - vacri 12y ago
    Firstly, just because you can find brief entries in other encyclopaedias doesn't mean that it's good form. Secondly, I didn't demand complete excision with the kind of frothy fervor you're implying. I said a better format for these "X is type Y, discovered by Z, listed in Q" is collating them all in a list format. WP has list article like this aplenty - dense, easily digestible information on similar topics, allowing quick and easy comparison and scanning. As for your link, one of the bold highlights is "explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary". Another of the three definitions of 'encyclopaedia' your link provides says "with data on and discussion of each subject identified" (my emphasis). So that's two out of three definitions that quite strongly indicate non-brief articles - your linked article is wrong from it's own source material, and hasn't made the case that dictionary-like brevity is suitable for an encyclopaedia. By your definition, this "(almost) one-sentence" article should be removed from WP, no? What, are you trying to 'catch me out' here? Do you think that's a good quality article? It's a stub, it's not what WP wants to encourage, and it's more like a dictionary definition than either "explaining a subject in greater detail" or "discussion of the subject". Yes, I think it's a bad article for any encyclopaedia - it's quite brief, and full of technical jargon. If you didn't already know the specific jargon, it's completely useless as a "general course of instruction" (the etymology argument from your link). And if you do know the jargon, you have a pretty good chance of working it out from the name alone; the article merely confirms the topic if you're unsure, but you don't get any more insight into it. As 'trick questions' go, this one sucked.

> The only people who would need this information are botanists I think that looking up plant species are exactly the kind of thing people would want to use an encyclopedia for.

vacri 12y ago

These are (almost) one-sentence articles. They're not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. If anything, they should be in a 'list' article format. If you want these kind of one-sentence descriptors, they would be better served in a specialist publication.

baddox 12y ago
If one-sentence articles are considered a problem, that seems like a reasonable choice for Wikipedia to make, but it would apply to human-written and bot-written articles.
- vacri 12y ago
  It does apply, regardless of the source of the article. Wikipedia doesn't like stub articles.
  - frik 12y ago
    Most articles started as stubs. At the moment many language versions of Wikipedia have different opinions about stubs. e.g. german wikipedia don't allow stubs anymore and the admins delete & reverts more pages every day than new ones are created. It's maybe a cultural problem as such admins identify themself with 'their articles' and don't allow any changes.
    - dalke 12y ago
      The question of course is in how to determine when a short article is a stub. Some short entries are sufficiently complete for the purposes of WP, whose English guidelines say "there are some subjects about which very little can be written." Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muati > Muati is an obscure local god in the Sumerian pantheon. He is associated in some texts with the mythical island paradise of Dilmun, and becomes syncretised with Nabu. That's unlikely to get much longer. For one, the "Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings ..." says "Muati, a god about whom we know very little."
dalke 12y ago
Why isn't it appropriate for an encyclopaedia? For example, the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica's complete entry for "denim" is "(an abbreviation of the serge de Nimes), the name originally given to a kind of serge. It is now applies to a stout twilled cloth made in various colours, usually of cotton, and used for overalls, &c." The entry for "Gimli" is "In Scandinavian mythology, the great hall of heaven whither the righteous will go to spend eternity." It's not hard to find more examples. But I don't think people considered the EB less of an encyclopaedia for its use of one-sentence descriptors. The heart of the matter is that there's precious little difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Indeed, the EB's full name is "The Encyclopædia Britannica: a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information" To double check that it's not limited to the EB, I looked in Harmsworth's Universal encyclopedia. The entry for "fulcrum" is "(Lat. fulcrum, a prop) Fixed point in the mechanical system of a lever about which the lever can rotate. See Lever." The entry for "gumboil" is "Small abscess on the gum arising in most cases from decay at the root of a tooth." See http://menvall.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/on-wikipedias-attempt-to-breake-out-of-objectivity-what-is-an-encyclopedia/ http://menvall.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/on-wikipedias-attemp... for an analysis of the distinction between the two, and the conclusion that "everything that is included in a dictionary also can be included in an encyclopedia, whereas all that is included in an encyclopedia either can or can’t be included in a dictionary. This relation is, however, completely misunderstood by some editors of Wikipedia." (Had you written that it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia, than that's a different issue. I speak now only of the broad category of "encyclopedia".) Triple-checking, the entry for "gumboil" in Wikipedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumboil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumboil) redirects to "Intraoral dental sinus". The complete entry is two sentences long: > Intraoral dental sinus (also termed a parulis and commonly, a gumboil) is an oral lesion characterized by a soft erythematous papule (red spot) that develops on the alveolar process in association with a non-vital tooth and accompanying dental abscess.[1] A parulis is made up of inflamed granulation tissue. By your definition, this "(almost) one-sentence" article should be removed from WP, no?
- vacri 12y ago
  Firstly, just because you can find brief entries in other encyclopaedias doesn't mean that it's good form. Secondly, I didn't demand complete excision with the kind of frothy fervor you're implying. I said a better format for these "X is type Y, discovered by Z, listed in Q" is collating them all in a list format. WP has list article like this aplenty - dense, easily digestible information on similar topics, allowing quick and easy comparison and scanning. As for your link, one of the bold highlights is "explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary". Another of the three definitions of 'encyclopaedia' your link provides says "with data on and discussion of each subject identified" (my emphasis). So that's two out of three definitions that quite strongly indicate non-brief articles - your linked article is wrong from it's own source material, and hasn't made the case that dictionary-like brevity is suitable for an encyclopaedia. By your definition, this "(almost) one-sentence" article should be removed from WP, no? What, are you trying to 'catch me out' here? Do you think that's a good quality article? It's a stub, it's not what WP wants to encourage, and it's more like a dictionary definition than either "explaining a subject in greater detail" or "discussion of the subject". Yes, I think it's a bad article for any encyclopaedia - it's quite brief, and full of technical jargon. If you didn't already know the specific jargon, it's completely useless as a "general course of instruction" (the etymology argument from your link). And if you do know the jargon, you have a pretty good chance of working it out from the name alone; the article merely confirms the topic if you're unsure, but you don't get any more insight into it. As 'trick questions' go, this one sucked.