This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
I'm not clear on the point of this essay. Is the point to discourage contributors from creating red links to desirable articles? Or to write a bare-bone stub on a notable topic, even if that is all a contributor can do at the time? As for the idea of a concept limit, I don't accept its existence without some important qualifications -- viz., past a certain point new articles require far more research & effort to create & maintain than those created up to that point. And even if one accepts that there is a "concept limit", due to man's ever increasing treasury of knowledge, this will not be a hard limit, but rather a limit on how many new articles conceivably can be written in each new unit of time. -- llywrch (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The author of the essay makes an elementary mistake in assuming that adding content to an article always improves it, whereas deleting content from an article (or deleting the entire article) is always "counter-developmental". This is a silly stance to take. SnottyWongexpress 00:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)