I wonder about how much of the fruit we've gathered. The plant WikiProject
has about 30,000 articles, which include a mixture of articles about plant
species, plant morphology and anatomy, and plant biologists. There are
close to 300,000 plant species in the world. If we're only in the 5-10%
range when it comes to coverage, I could imagine that could easily triple
the number of articles without delving into the really hard to find
corners. I can imagine that the Arthropods WikiProject (and its daughter
projects) have about 13,000 articles under their care. Again, adding
100,000 arthropod articles shouldn't be difficult. True, the stuff that you
could add off the top of your head may be gone, but grab a good field guide
to plants, or grab a historical dictionary, and you could add hundreds of
articles. To me it always seems like time is the major constraint, not
stuff that needs to be written about...
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I think we passed to point where low-hanging fruit was a major factor
some time ago (probably round about when we started to level out,
although it obviously depends on your definitions). I think in a few
years the vast majority of existing topics that we want to include
will have at least stubs about them. There will be new topics being
created all the time, so growth will never stop completely (there will
always be a new series of Big Brother to write about!). We might
expand our ideas of what kind of articles are acceptable (ie. relax
our notability guidelines), but that's the only way we are going to
maintain any significant level of article creation about pre-existing
topics.