User:Tony Sidaway/Soltak/Response
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Response to User:Soltak/Views by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs), mainly oriented to schools, and where stubs are mentioned, school stubs.
[edit] Schools
"While the purpose is notable and encyclopedic, every building that serves that purpose is not."
Schools are not buildings. They are institutions, organizations, in which we spend a large proportion of our waking hours as children.
If someone wants to write a neutral, verifiable article about their school, there is no reason why they shouldn't.
[edit] Stubs
"It's very disappointing that many authors of stubs write one to three, usually uninformative or poorly formed sentences about something, tag it for expansion, and move on without another thought."
Uninformative, "poorly formed" and so on are weasel words in the absence of actual evidence of such. Here is a list of every single new school article formed on September 7, 2005, followed by a link to its state as captured 48 hours after it was created:
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- (copyvio)
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- [1]
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- fter 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
- after 48 hours
Among those articles, there are some rather rough-and-ready examples, but "poorly formed" articles are rare. There may be one or two that fail to convey information, but I could not find any such by my own standards. Each one, at an early stage in its creation, imparted basic information about a school or group of schools.
Wikipedia is a wiki--a collaborative website. Urging people not to start an article simply because they cannot produce a fully formed, encyclopedic article is utterly wrong. There is no other way of putting it. It's misguided and, if it were ever to gain a hold on Wikipedia, it would be destructive to the production of an encyclopedia
