On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Peter Damian <peter.dam...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Risker >>In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of > articles it has now. > > Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
Yes. But not across "all articles". Anyone can pick and chose subsets or specific articles which aren't improving much if at all. I have two responses: 1. SOFIXIT - if you have IDed problems, fix them, or flag them for more attention (this thread was a form of that, but not terribly efficient). 2. If your opinion is firmly and irrevocably set that there isn't a continual improvement over time on the average, vote with your feet and pocketbook and find projects that you think are improving over time. My personal opinion is that, specific examples notwithstanding, there's a clear trend towards bigger better more accurate articles in nearly all topic areas. Your mileage may vary. If you have something like a longer list of backsliding articles please make it available for others to review; if you have serious statistical evidence of a problem please post that. Specific examples one at a time isn't in a project sense helpful. If there's a real problem it can be demonstrated with real evidence across sets of articles. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
