Legitimate decreases need to be considered, too.

1. Do we really NEED more articles on Botswana? Do the readers WANT more articles from there? I think the bigger issue is the youth bias. there are a lot of older readers of the Internet, but Wiki is youth-oriented in various ways (even the micro font, check out the ref 2.0 toolbar for the worst).

2. I think participation is very important. And I totally HEART having a decent edit user interface...it's a freaking CRIME that we are behind 1995 MS Word. Sooooo much time wasted for writers in the interface (even this edit window, look how tiny it is). And the lack of comprehension of how this impacts ergonomics reminds me of a bunch of Unix users, who think everyone should just enter C: prompts and why they heck would want want to click on stuff.  ;)

3. All that said, we should think about our work product and our READERS first. Yes, don't kill the golden goose. But the objective is NOT to have a well populated site. That is a means to an objective. Intead we should think about what our content is and how often it is used and not used and what criticisms are made of it. Although I'm not crazy about a bunch more Botswana content, I did appreciate that the foundation fellow was at least trying to talk about what sort of encyclopediea we should be (where our weak points are) on the output side.

TCO 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Botswana, but my Ethiopia-related articles appear to be well received. The last two articles I created which made DYK achieved over 1,300 (Bakri Sapalo) & 1,400 (1960 Ethiopian coup attempt) views. A lot more people are interested in African topics than you might think.

I actually totally HEART an attitude of wanting to know what is going in around the world. We have a world of Starbux-zipping multiculturalists who have no concept what Burton did undercover. Oooh-rah! The world is strange and interesting and diverse...much more than the Wilsonian neoliberals think.