On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What I proposed is really minimalistic. Requiring an annual growth of 10% is dangerous. It may mean that at some stage the English Wikipedia is to close because it does not grow by 10% any more... not good.
You missed the second part of what I said. I suggested we request a growth rate AND we set a cut-off for when a project has reached a stable size and no longer needs to demonstrate continued growth. en.wp would satisfy the second condition, as would any large and self-sustaining project. We obviously do not close large projects like en.wp.
Having 1000 articles which are generated in a day by a single bot, and no additional growth in membership or article count is hardly sufficient to keep a project open. Projects which do not attract editors, and which do not grow in size, are not operational projects.
So please, consider the three criteria I proposed and leave it at that for this thread.
the criteria that you posted were a good start but had a number of shortcomings. I'm trying to suggest ways to address those.
--Andrew Whitworth