658:
little knowledge/education in a topic can cannibalize a well written, extensively footnoted document, for inane reasons, "what's the use!?"!! Please also note another article on "Factoring" in which I had a very productive discussion with a "Chartered
Accountant" that led to initial improvements to the original article I edited 'appropriately' to ensure it contain a proper professional explanation of "Factoring". I don't contribute huge volumes of writing, but instead I limited myself to a few carefully written articles about subjects I have professional experience in! @
207:
186:
155:
512:
deserves to be called an article, but almost half are counted. Next I looked at all 33 pages with exactly 200 bytes, and 27 of those contained a comma. A few of them (not eighty percent!) might be considered articles under an extremely lenient definition of article, but does anyone outside of
Knowledge consider a single, brief paragraph to be an article? Are ANY of Brittanica's articles under 500 bytes?
124:
516:
would trim our total article count in half. But no matter how we count articles, let us at least prominently post the median size of the articles which are included in the count. And please, please don't call the count "unimpeachable". (For refernence, my little tirade (including this sentence) is 1367 bytes long, i.e. rather longer than our median article.)
442:; the lack of a question mark or a repetition of "Knowledge" will make linking easier. I've hedged a bit on the precise definition of "stub", because my impression is that the comma guideline is just an approximation for purposes of automatic detection (as I wrote), but only human judgement can tell if something is
300:
OK now that the new wording is in place on the Main Page that states; "Anyone, including you, can edit any article right now, without even having to log in.", I think it is now necessary for us to write down our definition of just what a
Knowledge article is (some people may be confused with the
657:
This is (at least) 1 reason why I, with a masters in
Economics (fulfilled by PhD classes), enough Accounting education to take CPA Exam, and with 22 years of professional Accounting and Financial Analysis experience, have stayed away from contributing to Knowledge for many years now. If those with
515:
I estimate our median article size as 1000 bytes, because that's the size of our 18943rd longest page according to long pages. (18943 would be the median of 37886 total articles.) To my mind, a conservative count of articles would place an 1000-byte minimum, rather than a 1000-byte median, which
446:
a stub. However unlikely, a long and substantive article might consist entirely of short declarative sentences and no commas; now that I think of it, we probably have some list pages that fall into this category. OTOH, a page whose only content is a repetition of the title (the ultimate stub) will
511:
OK, somebody has to say this: The fact that we are patting ourselves on the back for intentionally undercounting our articles is just plain silly. I just now went and looked under "short pages" at all 28 pages with exactly 100 bytes, and 13 of them contained a comma. Not a single one of them
530:
as conservative as it should be though. It should, for example, search for and exclude from the count any page that has the word "disambiguation" in the text or title and do some other things to exclude pages that are probably better described as definitions of encyclopedia topics and not
455:
Great! I really like your improvements, but I did tweak the reason why certain pages are protected; No Admin has to ask permission to make minor changes and copyedits to any protected page. Any major reorg or refactoring should be announced (a major reorg of the Main Page
581:
I prefer the byte-based distinction of stub/article. I'm working on
Japanese Wiki, and Japanese writing can go on in a great length without any commas, partly because we have a similar but different Japanese sign for that: "A"
393:
should be named. Therefore it is perfectly fine to use whatever capitalization, pluralization or transliteration you like for your user page and even pages in the other namespaces (except special, which can only be created by
609:
No, it will likely never happen. In the beginnings of wikipedia, there were disagreements about whether we should include dictionary definitions or not. It was decided that
Knowledge is not a dictionary (see
654:
an "Encyclopedia"! The thought and question seem nonsensical!! Especially when a published PhD indicated this article is "well written" and describes a (college) textbook explanation of the topic.
552:(Of course, mav changes it after saying this.) Yeah, I think that it's fine, although it'd be nice to write the pages that it links to too. That shouldn't stop us from linking to it, however. —
599:
A lot of entries really do not belong to an encyclopedia but to a dictionary. Is the
Wiktionary going to get combined with this project at some stage? Why aren't they already one thing?
503:
Last time I checked, yes. This is yet another feature request I have in my head -- trouble is that so many of the requests are already from me. Fixing this souldn't be hard though. --
301:"edit any article" statement when the main page and several policy pages are clearly read-only by non-admins). Here is a rough sketch of what I feel should be in such a definition;
52:
312:
A Knowledge article can be defined as a page in the database that either has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being; lists, timelines or charts).
115:
460:
need to be agreeded to before hand though). The only time permission and/or consensus is needed is if there will be any change in the meaning of any policy page. --
438:
Great, and I've made what I hope are improvements. (I also indented it for readability, but of course the final version won't have that.) I suggest putting it in
111:
472:
Methinks it would be useful to briefly explain what the namespaces are for, in stead of only mentioning them with an example. Or will it get too lengthy then?
356:
All these specified namespaces also have a yellowish background color to distinguish them from pages in the article namespace which have white backgrounds.
87:
373:" pages that cannot be considered real articles yet (a rough measure for purposes of automatic detection is that stubs do not contain any commas)
218:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit
695:
690:
263:
93:
560:
Coolness - now all we need is a small entry in the actual FAQ about this with a brief answer. I will go ahead link it from the Main Page. --
526:
Print encyclopedia's have many very short articles that are little more than definitions. I do agree that our automatic article count is
491:
Is is true that disambiguation pages are not automatically detected and thus are counted in the total number of articles given on the
418:
402:
273:
334:
341:
685:
611:
37:
33:
429:
82:
439:
386:
166:
629:). If the article goes beyond a simple definition, and it complies with other policies, it can be kept in Knowledge. -
428:
Please go ahead and edit the above or leave suggestions below. As soon statement is agreed to I plan on placing it in
223:
73:
123:
106:
406:
134:
630:
432:
or something similar and then sublink that to the word "article" in the intro message on the front page. --
305:
There are many pages in
Knowledge, far more than we actually consider to be articles. For calculating our
219:
214:
191:
172:
309:
and for regular conversation we have a more or less specific definition of what constitutes an article.
323:
410:
316:
63:
659:
662:
377:
306:
139:
78:
670:
633:
553:
496:
448:
348:
59:
666:
136:
603:
561:
547:
532:
504:
484:
461:
433:
138:
413:
and
Knowledge Policy has to be agreeded to by consensus before being changed. But every
17:
520:
473:
370:
330:
294:
206:
185:
679:
615:
539:
231:
626:
401:
and a few of the most important policy pages in the
Knowledge: namespace (such as
359:
However there are still some non-articles in the article namespace; most notably:
625:
a dictionary definition that is already in Wiktionary, it can be speedy deleted (
600:
588:
380:" pages which are used to re-route traffic going to one page to another page.
543:
531:
encyclopedia articles (that is, there needs to be better stub detection). --
492:
398:
363:
227:
569:
409:, because experience has shown that the main page is a major target for
226:
and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the
483:
brief explaination since namespaces have their own FAQ page. --
585:
I imagine this situation is not unique to Japanese language.
148:
140:
28:
642:
236:
568:
Is it just me or has the number of articles dropped?
538:
This FAQ looks good to me now. Shall we link it from
417:and the vast majority of non-article pages can be
640:What about"Holocaust"in Encyclopedia Britannica (
315:This does not include any pages in any specified
447:still have a comma in it if the title does. —
8:
576:No. It has been at 90679 since Monday. --mav
235:
650:)? By Definition, Encyclopedia Britannica
180:
165:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
182:
479:Good idea - although that should be a
430:Knowledge:What is a Knowledge article?
329:any of the talk namespaces (examples,
242:and a volunteer will visit you there.
212:This page is within the scope of the
7:
154:
152:
171:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
322:the Knowledge namespace (example,
25:
403:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines
335:Knowledge talk:Size of Knowledge
205:
184:
153:
122:
53:Click here to start a new topic.
614:), and wiktionary was created.
251:Template:Knowledge Help Project
595:Dictionary versus Encyclopedia
238:ask for help on your talk page
1:
634:20:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
50:Put new text under old text.
696:Knowledge Help Project pages
691:Mid-importance Help articles
440:Knowledge:What is an article
385:It should be noted that our
268:This page has been rated as
58:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
712:
274:project's importance scale
671:12:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
572:23:36 Nov 14, 2002 (UTC)
556:15:30 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)
523:02:55 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)
499:01:14 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)
451:21:50 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
267:
222:, where you can join the
200:
179:
88:Be welcoming to newcomers
618:16:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
591:00:35 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
423:including you right now!
369:hundreds of very short "
340:special pages (example,
18:Knowledge talk:MAINSPACE
686:NA-Class Help articles
342:Special:Recent Changes
248:Knowledge:Help Project
215:Knowledge Help Project
83:avoid personal attacks
612:What Knowledge is not
347:user pages (example,
116:Auto-archiving period
324:Knowledge:Statistics
38:What is an article?
387:naming conventions
167:content assessment
94:dispute resolution
55:
621:If an article is
349:User:Larry Sanger
288:
287:
284:
283:
280:
279:
147:
146:
74:Assume good faith
51:
16:(Redirected from
703:
649:
389:only cover what
256:
255:
252:
249:
246:
241:
220:the project page
209:
202:
201:
196:
188:
181:
158:
157:
156:
149:
141:
127:
126:
117:
29:
21:
711:
710:
706:
705:
704:
702:
701:
700:
676:
675:
646:
644:
641:
597:
468:End moved talk
307:site statistics
298:
253:
250:
247:
244:
243:
194:
143:
142:
137:
114:
100:
99:
69:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
709:
707:
699:
698:
693:
688:
678:
677:
674:
673:
655:
637:
636:
624:
619:
596:
593:
579:
578:
577:
566:
565:
564:
536:
509:
508:
507:
489:
488:
487:
470:
466:
465:
464:
426:
425:
395:
383:
382:
381:
376:thousands of "
374:
367:
357:
354:
353:
352:
345:
338:
331:Talk:Main Page
327:
313:
310:
297:
295:Talk:Main Page
291:
286:
285:
282:
281:
278:
277:
270:Mid-importance
266:
260:
259:
257:
245:Knowledge Help
232:Help Directory
210:
198:
197:
195:Mid‑importance
192:Knowledge Help
189:
177:
176:
170:
159:
145:
144:
135:
133:
132:
129:
128:
102:
101:
98:
97:
90:
85:
76:
70:
68:
67:
56:
47:
46:
43:
42:
41:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
708:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
683:
681:
672:
668:
664:
661:
656:
653:
648:
639:
638:
635:
632:
631:Donald Albury
628:
622:
620:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
594:
592:
590:
586:
583:
575:
574:
573:
571:
563:
559:
558:
557:
555:
550:
549:
545:
541:
540:Knowledge:FAQ
535:
534:
529:
524:
522:
517:
513:
506:
502:
501:
500:
498:
494:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
469:
463:
459:
454:
453:
452:
450:
445:
441:
436:
435:
431:
424:
421:by any user,
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
372:
368:
365:
361:
360:
358:
355:
350:
346:
343:
339:
336:
332:
328:
325:
321:
320:
318:
314:
311:
308:
304:
303:
302:
296:
292:
290:
275:
271:
265:
262:
261:
258:
254:Help articles
240:
239:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
211:
208:
204:
203:
199:
193:
190:
187:
183:
178:
174:
168:
164:
160:
151:
150:
131:
130:
125:
121:
113:
110:
108:
104:
103:
95:
91:
89:
86:
84:
80:
77:
75:
72:
71:
65:
61:
60:Learn to edit
57:
54:
49:
48:
45:
44:
39:
35:
31:
30:
27:
19:
651:
598:
587:
584:
580:
567:
551:
537:
527:
525:
518:
514:
510:
490:
480:
471:
467:
457:
443:
437:
427:
422:
414:
394:developers).
390:
299:
289:
269:
237:
213:
173:WikiProjects
163:project page
162:
119:
105:
32:This is the
26:
645:.britannica
293:Moved from
680:Categories
616:✏ Sverdrup
224:discussion
663:MGMontini
544:Main Page
521:Fritzlein
493:Main Page
407:protected
399:Main Page
364:Main Page
319:such as:
317:namespace
228:Help Menu
96:if needed
79:Be polite
34:talk page
542:and the
474:Jeronimo
391:articles
378:redirect
120:365Â days
107:Archives
64:get help
660:Mgmwiki
546:now? --
415:article
411:vandals
272:on the
604:(talk)
444:really
419:edited
405:) are
169:scale.
627:WP:A5
601:BozMo
589:Tomos
458:would
234:. Or
161:This
92:Seek
40:page.
667:talk
647:.com
623:only
554:Toby
497:Toby
495:? —
481:very
449:Toby
397:The
371:stub
362:the
81:and
643:www
570:Lir
562:mav
548:mav
533:mav
528:not
505:mav
485:mav
462:mav
434:mav
333:or
264:Mid
230:or
682::
669:)
652:is
519:--
351:).
344:);
337:);
326:);
118::
62:;
665:(
366:;
276:.
175::
112:1
109::
66:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
