kosebamse@gmx.net wrote
One interesting point with my little test seems to be that the average quality of our content has not much improved since March (or since 2003, as far as I can remember).
If we're talking about the _proportion of stubs_, then, yes, I can believe it is about what it ever was. You'd expect that on general grounds, if there was exponential growth.
Other interesting measures would be things like
- prevalence of red links - categorisation.
I'd guess at least 10% of articles are inadequately categorised; a first step to improvement is to get them roughly into a sorting category. I think red links do get paid attention. That would be one reason for more stubs, of course. But, again assuming exponential growth, you'd assume a model where the well-developed 'core' articles are surrounded by diffuse 'penumbra' articles, large in number. At what point this starts to 'close up' and become more uniform is anyone's guess. We are not there yet, clearly.
Charles