[Wikipedia-l] Quality vs Quantity

[Berto 'd Sera]

> But I do think we should discuss it... is it better to have 1000 
> stubs or 100 long well-written articles?

I originally rated stubs as no more than a trick to fake a higher article
count. I have to admit that stubs succeeded in capturing activity, people
start adding stuff, those who cannot write properly add pictures, but there
is a quantity of activity they capture.

Same applies to red links, although a stub seems to be more immediate in
asking participation. On the other hand, stubs grow quite casually and
eventually need to be rewritten into a proper article, because they do
capture stuff but have no underlying scheme.

I suppose there's no general rule, though. It would be easier to judge if we
could have a curve about "stub growth in time". Ours started to grow some
4-5 months after being made, some are just moving now after a year and some
are still empty stubs. Intuitively I'd say some 30-40% of them did capture
material (it was about 300-500 pieces about botanic and zoology). 

Maybe it would have been better if we had used a wider distribution as per
subject. Who knows?

Bèrto ‘d Sèra
Personagi dl’ann 2006 për l’arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html