Many of the roughly 1.5 million Wikipedia articles that are near start or stub quality are at that level for good reason: Lack of public interest. However, if one were to start a new encyclopedia with the aim of improving them and could find a sizable number of people whose tolerance for incredibly boring topics was quite high, i'm sure Wikipedia would gladly accept the changes back. Its just that no one would read them.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote: > > * has not been growing exponentially; instead, growth is a "straight > line"; > > It's worse than that. Not only is growth in article numbers linear, > median word count per article is decreasing fairly rapidly so it would > seem they're just writing stubs. I would advise you to try and avoid > that - the only way you are going to attract readers away from > Wikipedia is if your articles are significantly better quality, you > will never match us for quantity (well, not for a few years, anyway, > and as I said before it's the first 18 months that matters). > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
