on 7/29/08 5:37 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com at WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
The title of this thread is a false dichotomy.
There is not necessarily any loss in "quality" in making something more
comprehensive. What you get rather is a bell-curve where the tailings have
few,
perhaps only one editor.
However if that one editor is moderately good at being a Wikipedian, they may
be generating top-notch articles. Just ones with few other interested
parties.
The idea that we need to stick to a smaller set of core articles in order to
maintain quality has no evidence. Some of the articles with many editors are
in sad shape.
Will Johnson
Will,
You're playing fast & loose with the word "comprehensive" here :-).
This
thread was meant to call attention to Wikipedia's seeming obsession with
size as a measure of quality in a work. Most articles - most edits - most
posts - -! The companies cited in the beginning of the thread are finally
learning that bigger can mean thinner. And the thinner in their case means
their bottom line.
Marc