[Wikipedia-l] Quality vs Quantity

[Francis Tyers]

> I think that there has been too much emphasis on article count in the
> past, causing people to think that it is much more important than it
> really is and wanting to inflate it by adding hundreds or even
> thousands of "hollow" articles with little information on semi-obscure
> topics that probably won't be read at all by anyone ever, and if they
> are, will not be useful.

You're right of course, but writing long articles is pretty hard
compared to 'stub-length' ones. Also, stub-length ones with basic
information can be generated quite easily with bots. See for example:

http://tg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%
D0%B8

At some point these articles will have to be written, and is it easier
to start with a stub, or with nothing? Furthermore, stubs allow people
who aren't particularly fluent in the language to contribute.

And as to your question, 100 well written articles is better than 1000
stubs, but where to find the people to write them?

Fran