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.
The better alternative is to scale up the shorter article. This is an
extension of 'Wiki is not paper'.
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.
Ec