On 17-06-2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote thusly :
--- Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles
slip form the RC and
plunge into the Wikipedia's great information
soup.
This is an observation from perusing the ancient
pages list.
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could call them ``ancient"?
No, pages from [[Special:Ancientpages]].
Rather [[Special: Oldest articles]] which shows how few Wikipedians use this feature and may be unaware how many articles are "left behind". We seem to look back a few days back on the RC.
I have just looked at last 1000 new articles and I have found not only one sentence articles but also 3 word articles.
I agree that the name of the article Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible is not the best one. But it tries to illustrate that probability that 3-word article will be taken over and made into superb one has fallen. We have 130,000+ articles and I feel disproportionately few people on the editorial board to look after the growing number. I suppose more people are inclined to add new articles than review and expand the existing ones. Besides it takes much more time to review and expand an article than to create one.
The majority that was disgusted with my Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible article view it as something that undermines the very nature of Wikipedia. And my intention was well-meant.
I think some new kind of statistics might shed light on the current and future trends in Wikipedia growth.
"Content can only get better" paradigm - I believe in it and see it happen every day but will it be true with, say, 260,000 articles ? Do we care about overall quality of articles or say let's have 10% the best ones and the rest be mediocre or only touched on ones.
Regards, Kpjas.
P.S please move the offending article to a new better name