From: Jimmy Wales
<snip>
The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times.
Well said. Okay, I'll fill in the missing steps of the argument.
Premises: 1. If someone imports thousands of articles on subjects of limited interest, the existence of those articles will degrade the quality of Wikipedia more than it will improve it. 2. We want to prevent actions which degrade the quality of Wikipedia more than they improve it. 3. If we allow individuals to each write a few articles on subjects of limited interest, over time, the cumulative result in time will be the creation of thousands of such articles. 4. The time over which articles are added has no bearing on their cumulative effect on the quality of Wikipedia. 5. There exist no differences between a mass-imported article and indiviually entered article on subjects of limited interest in terms of cumulative effect on the quality of Wikipedia; for example, the nature of the articles on subjects of limited interest (such as whether the information is drawn directly from a database or has been crafted through methods currently unavailable to mechanical processes) has no bearing. 6. The number of participants in the process of creating articles on subjects of limited interest has no bearing on the cumulative effect of such articles.
Conclusion: Therefore we want to prevent individuals from each writing a few articles on subjects of limited interest.
Corollary: Premises: 1. If there already exist articles on subjects of limited interest, but we have forbidden the creation of any more, Wikipedia de facto is biased toward the subjects which are covered. 2. Wikipedia should avoid bias. Conclusion: Therefore we should delete all current articles on subjects of limited interest.
I don't buy premises 4-6.