I love Wikipedia I go there all the time and just click random article and just read and read and read. Every now and then I will be disappointed by an article that seems like its to short or does not have enough content. What pages have you run across that seem like stubs when they shoudlnt be?
Here is the entire text of a Wikipedia article I just got on the random feature:
That is all.
After re-watching The Hustler on DVD a few months ago I was shocked that it was both so short and so shoddy. It didn’t even have a plot summary, which is usually the first thing that gets written for a film article.
I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for *The Hustler * and it seems to have a fairly complete plot summary. Did you put it there?
Judging by the number of edits made by “Otto1477” in the history, I’m guessing that yes, he did. 
Indeed yes. The second link in my post is to the revision as it appeared when I found it. I’m trying to get it up to “Good article” status and would eventually like to try to get it featured.
'nother random article:
I use Wikipedia a lot to look stuff up, but don’t contribute or notice the functions much. Are random articles truly random? I was intrigued by the OP so I thought I’d give it a try, and about 70% of my random articles are three sentences or shorter. Is that a common experience?
These statistics are from March 2006 and so are hopelessly out of date, but when the number of articles passed the one million mark over 35% of the articles were “stubs.” Being a stub doesn’t automatically man that the article is short but that is usually the case. Given that there are now over 2.4 million articles, I would hazard a guess that at least 45% of them are stubs. I sometimes get annoyed by stub articles and that annoyance sometimes motivates me to expand them if I can. I’ve been pretty much required to create stubs on more than one occasion, when someone reviewing an article I’d written demanded that every link in the article (about a Canadian film with a virtually unknown cast) have associated articles. So I produced such gems as John Robinson (Canadian actor) which reads in its entirety “John Robinson is a Canadian film and television actor.” and Normand Fauteux which offers the illuminating “Normand Fauteux is a Québécois film and television actor and performance artist.” These seemed to satisfy him and he passed the article into Good status, and maybe someone some day will be annoyed enough by them to expand them. A couple of the others he made me write have attracted some editorial attention, including, sadly, notification of the person’s death.
Hm. Well, I’ve seen articles that were designated “stubs,” but neither of the examples I’ve posted above said that. They just appeared as is.
I went on to correct something once, and was rejected. I tried again today and couldn’t remember my user name or password (it’s been years). I know somebody who’s an editor, so I just tell him what I want, and he makes fixes for me – like 3 or 4 times a year, when I notice something.
Most of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books have longer articles, but the article for By the Shores of Silver Lake is shorter than the info box on its page.
“By the Shores of Silver Lake, by Laura Ingalls Wilder, was published in 1939 and is the fifth out of nine books written in her Little House series, also known as “The Laura Years”. This book is based on Laura’s late childhood spent near De Smet, South Dakota, in late 19th Century, and is the first book in the series to reference her sister Mary’s teenage illness (referred to in the book as scarlet fever) and resulting lifelong blindness. The book also introduces Laura’s youngest sister Grace Pearl. Jack dies of old age. Laura also meets her cousin Lena Ingalls and they play together.”
That’s it.
You can edit without being signed in, as long as the article isn’t “protected” against anonymous edits.
This is something I’m curious about. Wouldn’t it be better not to create a link if there’s no article associated with it? Or is the idea that eventually there will be an article there, and at that point the link will go somewhere useful? And what’s the rule on how often to create links in an article? I found one the other day that linked to the year 1989, although there didn’t seem to be any compelling reason for the link.
I’ve been trying to contribute something to Wikipedia. I don’t have many primary source materials at hand, so I can’t really contribute anything substantial. But I have tried to improve the articles I come across, by doing minor copy editing and trying to add links where I think they would be helpful.
OK, I just did. Thanks.
Otto, if I’m reading this right, you seem to be saying tht you wrote an article and included links that went nowhere. Is that the case? And if so, why, exactly, do you bother including links to non-existent articles? Because I too find that annoying. Even a glut of GENUINE links reduces the readability of a piece of text; it seems worse than pointless to incude links that DO NOTHING USEFUL.
Creating redlinks is acceptable because it does increase the likelihood that someone will come along, read the article and know about/become interested in the subject of the redlink and create the article. Wikiprojects sometimes use the number of times a subject is redlinked to determine which articles are most wanted/needed. See WP:Red link and WP:Build.
In this instance, the redlinks were the cast and producers of the film, some of whom had articles but several of whom didn’t. The reviewer was under the (mistaken) impression that infoboxes in Good articles can’t contain any redlinks and insisted that there be articles for them before passing. Rather than having the article failed and going through a month-long reassessment process, I made the stubs.