I would not call 20 random pages "unscientific", even if your evaluations are necessarily subjective. I have formatted your user subpage into a table, for easier viewing and consolidated your results: 7 bad: 2 fancruft, 1 not of encyclopedic standard, 1 list of marginal interest, 1 needs work, 2 non-articles 8 stubs: 3 salvageable, 4 average / acceptable, 1 decent 5 good: 3 decent or fine, 2 acceptable / "short but informative" Based on this, I give Wikipedia a score of 25% - a failing grade. But all is not lost. If we mark articles as bad or stub, we could keep them somewhat hidden from the public. Volunteer contributors could see them, of course, by "opting in". Everyone else (call them "general readers") would be told that we don't have an article on the subject yet BUT that we are working on it. "And would you like to see the work in progress?" Ed Poor Quality Maven