Conclusions: None yet, really, since the methodology isn't very solid and the sample set is small. But notably: More than half the articles were stubs. Hardly any articles had any real "references". Most of the external links were band websites, company websites etc. Of the few refernces, one was blatantly false and a few were "bad". So it's probably a little early to be claiming that all material added to Wikipedia MUST be sourced or it will be removed. Because based on this, only around 15% of Wikipedia would survive. (Which is more than I would have predicted).
Any suggestions for improved methodology? It might be nice to harness the wikipedia population to collect some more general article quality metrics...
Steve
I think we can have quite a simply solution to this. Do the same as we did to the images. Stuff which isn't cited within a week, can be speedy deleted like we do with images now. Just make sure it only applies to articles created after date X.
Mgm