[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary

[Jimmy Wales]

Oh, good, it's one of us.  Let's make sure we unblock the IP.

I was afraid some helpful stranger would feel hurt and run away.

Let's chat about this, and let Neil do this after a consensus is reached.

> There's also no chance of killing existing articles: the script checks 
> in advance, and refuses to over-write existing articles.

I think this might have been the main concern.

> a) the bias in many of the articles (in which case I can add a
> disclaimer, saying "This is from an old Bible Dictionary, and it has the
> biases of its author and period -- please use this material as a basis
> for a new article")

Possibly the wording of this might be different, but I personally have no
suggestions.

> b) the rate of the scripted additions

So long as the server doesn't die....

> c) auto-addition of any material, even when filtered for stubs and nonsense?

I think we want to be careful about it.

The only other concern I personally might raise is that sometimes a blank article
will do more to encourage new writing than an old and obsolete article.  This is
a tough call.

How many articles is it, total?