On 2/26/07, Robth <robth1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The above is an argument for some form of reliable
sources guideline,
obviously, and not a notability guideline. The latter I'm more up in
the air on; in the long run, I see no real need for one, but in the
short run there is something to be said for limiting our size sheerly
for reasons of manageability (although realistically we crossed the
borders of where we had any really effective quality control long
ago); some sort of rolling notability guideline that we could
progressively loosen over the years as our ability to cope with more
and more content developed would be an interesting possibility.
Wikipedia decided to take the road of not controlling growth some time
ago, and I think overall it has worked out well. I think we cope with
the mass of content well enough.
I see it as concentric circles, like a target; the center is the
high-quality articles, and each ring outward is progressively lower
quality. All these rings are expanding. The sum total of crap
articles is inexorably expanding, but so is the total of useful stubs,
the patchy but promising, the serviceable but short, and even the
excellent ones.
Over time, the number of serviceable encyclopedia articles has
steadily increased, and I see no signs of that stopping. The
percentage of articles that are high-quality may not go up, but the
quantity and coverage of those articles is constantly increasing.
-Matt