On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This approach I don't agree with. Everytime we
cite the fact that
Wikipedia has 1,000,000 articles, we ascribe value to each of those
articles. Every time we allow crud that we would be ashamed to speak
of to remain in the article, we diminish the value of those articles.
Hmm. I'd doubt many people in the world believe we've reached a
million articles without handling a lot of trivia. Do you really
think that anyone would be surprised by the fact that a good portion
of that million are on such subjects?
For exactly the same reason I think it is very poor
for us to have
900,000 (or more?) inactive user accounts. They don't harm us directly
- but they do vastly misrepresent the actual state of the project.
I don't think we tend to boast about our numbers of user accounts, do
we? User accounts unused for <x> months and with no undeleted
contributions should be pruned though, I think, simply from a
manageability point of view.
I've noticed people mentioning our active user count and our admin
count more often than the total.
-Matt