[WikiEN-l] Scale of online resources, was Re: Rating the English wikipedia

[Charles Matthews]

On 20/07/2011 10:17, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I missed reading this thread when it was active, but my own estimate of
> what still needs to be done in historical biographies alone is quite
> high.

Yes, that is one area where the material seems available to do much more.

 >An estimate of 20,000,000 English
> Wikipedia articles seems increasingly conservative.  The amount of work
> to be done is enormous even without having to fight with the notability
> police.
On the other hand, the number of active Wikipedians who know where their 
next 1000 articles are coming from is quite small, IMX. The emphasis on 
enWP is hardly on being prolific: quality is more highly rated than 
quantity. That may not be wrong, of course, but to some extent these 
things are a matter of personal taste, and should remain so. We could do 
with better support of the "good stub" concept, I think: probably an 
example of "tacit knowledge" about the site, in that editors who have 
been around for a while know what that means, while the manual pages 
have a different slant.

All discussions of the "notability" concept we use seem to end up with 
the generally broken nature of the thing. It is just that there is no 
snappy replacement. WP:GNG is a bit objectionable in the insistence on 
"secondary sources"; it is not completely silly but is not that helpful 
either when you start pushing the limits.

Charles