Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
I just did a small experiment. I hit the random button twenty times and recorded the articles that came up. Judging by this random sample there are three types of information presented in the wikipedia - 1)lists and templates 2)pathetic stubs and 3)complete articles. Out of my twenty
According to this metric, Nupedia is a complete success and Wikipedia is a two-thirds failure. I think you should add 200 articles that are not yet written to each 20 that you found. A lot can be done to improve the existing articles and going to random links can be a useful way to find them, but there is also a great need to add more articles, and in my personal opinion it is better to add a stub than not.
- Government of Nigeria - CIA factbook information page. Essentially
Ah, that's why SpamAssassin caught your message. :-)