This kind of stubs shouldn't be created. Nothing links to this page, it references only one blog post, so it's basically a summary article for that single blog post, and there is even no description. For now (with a rather weak "core" of the wiki and few contributors), even "summary" articles as you've done with No_one_knows_what_science_doesn't_know, shouldn't be created, if there are not enough references to them (or none can be naturally created once article is written) -- they dilute the effort to improve the quality of other articles. One can as well link directly to the blog post instead of through the wiki summary. --Vladimir Nesov 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that in retrospect, it was silly of me to create an empty stub---I was planning to write content here and then got tied up in something else; sorry! I agree that it's not good to create frivolous wiki summaries of blog posts, but where I've created wiki articles named after a post (e.g., No one knows what science doesn't know, No safe defense), it's because I thought that the articles described and named concepts with wide general applicability: for example, this point that "there's too much research for anyone to have a grasp of what we know and what we don't know" really is relevant in a lot of contexts. It's more akin to the Reality is normal page rather than, I don't know, some random page summarizing Explain/Worship/Ignore? that shouldn't exist. ---Z. M. Davis 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty subjective: different people will find different concepts important. That's why at least checking that the concept integrates in the rest of the wiki (i.e. it's easy to see from where to link to it) looks like a good heuristic. --Vladimir Nesov 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
From the old discussion page:
Talk:2-place and 1-place words
This kind of stubs shouldn't be created. Nothing links to this page, it references only one blog post, so it's basically a summary article for that single blog post, and there is even no description. For now (with a rather weak "core" of the wiki and few contributors), even "summary" articles as you've done with No_one_knows_what_science_doesn't_know, shouldn't be created, if there are not enough references to them (or none can be naturally created once article is written) -- they dilute the effort to improve the quality of other articles. One can as well link directly to the blog post instead of through the wiki summary. --Vladimir Nesov 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that in retrospect, it was silly of me to create an empty stub---I was planning to write content here and then got tied up in something else; sorry! I agree that it's not good to create frivolous wiki summaries of blog posts, but where I've created wiki articles named after a post (e.g., No one knows what science doesn't know, No safe defense), it's because I thought that the articles described and named concepts with wide general applicability: for example, this point that "there's too much research for anyone to have a grasp of what we know and what we don't know" really is relevant in a lot of contexts. It's more akin to the Reality is normal page rather than, I don't know, some random page summarizing Explain/Worship/Ignore? that shouldn't exist. ---Z. M. Davis 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty subjective: different people will find different concepts important. That's why at least checking that the concept integrates in the rest of the wiki (i.e. it's easy to see from where to link to it) looks like a good heuristic. --Vladimir Nesov 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)