The obvious point to make re new articles being created is that that could never have gone on indefinitely simply because back in the days when we had nothing or were scattered in coverage of certain areas, filling those generated a lot of articles. I remember personally generating hundreds of articles for suburbs or LGAs which did not previously exist in around 2006 or 2007. All of those now exist, the only changes that can be made are to improve them. And stub generation (even post-stub generation) is a lot easier and a lot more possible to do by a wider range of people than is quality content or improving articles. To give another geography example - I might know a bit about my area but not a lot about the area down the road, so I might make significant improvements t omy own area but ignore the other one. If there isn't a similar editor there, then that one stays a stub.
2009/8/7 private musings <thepmacco...@gmail.com> > > http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedias-on-the-wane-study-20090807-ec98.html > > It's a little bit backhanded in it's coverage of the GLAM stuff - complete > with Liam's early contended for strangest wiki-quote of the year! > > "People who like sausages or obeying the law shouldn't see either being > made, and the same goes for encyclopedias - it's a messy process but the > outcome is good," Wyatt said. ;-) > > I'm curious to hear what role folks would envisage this chapter having in > the 'global strategic review' apparently kicking off to discuss the next 5 > years for wmf projects? > > cheers, > > Peter, > PM. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaauemail@example.com > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l