David Alexander Russell wrote:
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Out of all figures, the raw number of "articles" (including those pages which are in namespace=0 and lack any attribute of an article, such as lists) is the worst and most ignorable number. EB.com's 100K are shrinking to some 20.000 "articles" when you look at what's online without subscription.
Out of this 20K, there are stubs, substubs and subsubstubs.
Some of the more veteran internet users might be able to remember the Britannica Online desaster when their business plan collided with reality.
If any, an Wikipedia that accepts fancruft and unverifiable information about the unreleased demo tape of a gothic band that stopped to exist before releasing any other medium as a single article should not start to see large numbers of articles as a sign of quality.
Mathias