They are better covered with respect to current population, but not with respect to Land area..
I suspect that a couple of phenomena are at play here. One is that many of our articles are about historic sites and they are more evenly spread as many predate the great drift to the towns in the nineteenth century. The other is that every little settlement merits an article, whilst large slabs of Suburbia are lumped together. ~~~~ On 1 December 2010 00:01, Michael Peel <[email protected]> wrote: > It's very surprising that rural locations are a lot better covered on > Wikipedia than city areas - what's going on here? > Mike > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "steve virgin" <[email protected]> > Date: 30 November 2010 23:55:39 GMT > To: "'Wikimedia UK Board mailing list'" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [WMUK Board] Wikipedia in the UK mapped > Reply-To: Wikimedia UK Board mailing list <[email protected]> > > http://zerogeography.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikipedia-in-uk.html > > J > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wikimedia.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
