That's a feature. Each article requires future attention and adds load.

Most of the important articles were in the first 100,000.

20after4 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

I think the ongoing hosting cost of any given article is incredibly close to zero with the exception of a very tiny fraction of popular articles. The popular ones obviously deserve to be there as evidenced by their popularity alone. Maybe there is something I'm not taking into account but I have a hard time seeing the meaningful cost of some obscure wiki page merely existing.

	▲	sedev 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		> Maybe there is something I'm not taking into account but I have a hard time seeing the meaningful cost of some obscure wiki page merely existing. The thing you're not taking into account is that every article that exists takes up some amount of editor time, which is why it's good when more people participate in Wikipedia. You are correct that the server/bandwidth cost of almost all articles rounds off to zero. That leaves just the cost in "an actual human looked at this and okayed it," which has different scaling characteristics.

▲

johnnyanmac 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

If that's the intention, fine. But don't be surprised when no one but the most committed politicians want to bother trying to contribute to the project.