On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Fwiw, my take is to use the more general approach of "do we have
> enough editors to mantain this depth of coverage". For the Obama
> transition we probably do, for the Truman one, probably not. As the
> years go by, the scales will tip and eventually we'll have to scale
> back our coverage.
Adjust for historical perspective, rather. The extensive coverage at
the time, including a sprawling mass of Wikipedia articles, should
still be part of the historical record.
The better alternative is to scale up the shorter
article. This is an
extension of 'Wiki is not paper'.
That only goes so far, up until you run out of sources.
The only time
this is a real problem is when one article has different
sections that are grossly out of proportion, making one event or
person look more "important" than another, simply because we have more
people writing on it.
Why does that need to be a problem? You can't expect all articles to
grow at the same rate.
He said sections, not articles. WP:UNDUE applies within articles.
Whether a version of WP:UNDUE should apply across the whole
encyclopedia is essentially the question of notability repackaged. And
when you spin sections out of existing articles to form new articles,
then WP:UNDUE clashes with WP:NOTABILITY (expand a section - you may
be unbalancing the article; spin off section to form a new article -
you may be unbalancing the encyclopedia).