[WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...

[charles matthews]

kosebamse at gmx.net wrote

> One interesting point with my little test seems to
> be that the average quality of our content has not much improved since 
> March
> (or since 2003, as far as I can remember).

If we're talking about the _proportion of stubs_, then, yes, I can believe 
it is about what it ever was.  You'd expect that on general grounds, if 
there was exponential growth.

Other interesting measures would be things like

- prevalence of red links
- categorisation.

I'd guess at least 10% of articles are inadequately categorised; a first 
step to improvement is to get them roughly into a sorting category.  I think 
red links do get paid attention.  That would be one reason for more stubs, 
of course. But, again assuming exponential growth, you'd assume a model 
where the well-developed 'core' articles are surrounded by diffuse 
'penumbra' articles, large in number.  At what point this starts to 'close 
up' and become more uniform is anyone's guess.  We are not there yet, 
clearly.

Charles