Steven Walling wrote:
...we just simply can't include every possible
topic under the sun
and still produce an accurate and reliable encyclopedia. Space is
not the issue, quality is. The breadth has to stop somewhere,
so we can get to depth.
You're welcome to that opinion, but please realize that's what it
is, and it's not a majority opinion, either.
By and large, the only people who are hurt by stubby articles or
by articles on allegedly non-notable subjects are the subset of
Wikipedia editors who wring their hands over the constructed
worry that these articles make us look less "serious".
To which I say, get over it. Our readers certainly don't care.
They can and do ignore the articles they don't care about --
they might as well not be there. But to someone who *is* looking
for information on a certain topic, an article on it -- no matter
if it's stubby or less than exhaustively sourced -- is potentially
just as useful as our most polished featured article.