"Maury Markowitz" maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote in message news:BAY141-F20F0CA5B8F7FE92233C356884C0@phx.gbl...
The point being that I would expect stub article creation to be pretty
high
in new Wikipedias, and to tail off as the Wikipedia in question comes to
be
seen as more authoritative.
Authoritative? Or just more bureaucratic? I personally believe the problem is the later.
Authoritative. This has nothing to do with the internal systems, but with external impressions. If a user thinks of Wikipedia as an authoratitive resource, they are unlikely to add stubs because they assume that the content is already there (they just haven't managed to find it) or has been deliberately omitted.
It's the same kind of argument by which scrabble players will say a word is invalid because it is not in their dictionary. It is a falacious argument, but a common one.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)