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
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to