[WikiEN-l] Re: Rambot city articles vs. other topics

[geni]

On 10/23/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got
> > > thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a
> > > problem with
> > > that either.
> > > Anthony
> >
> > The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that
> > contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
> >
> > Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive
> > (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule
> > percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and
> > derive from good (though uncited) sources.
>
>
> If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the
> resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then surely
> we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the
> garage bands in the world.
>
> Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes is perfectly fine as long
> as you limit your comparison to the proper aspects. Frankly, I think the
> uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that wasn't
> related to the thread I was making the comparison in.

Since they are so standard they can for a large part be bot mentained
requireing minimal effort on the part of editors.

--
geni