> Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). I take your point, but I would claim that Wikipedia is no

> Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). I take your point, but I would claim that Wikipedia is no where near the maximimum size set by the notability criterion. You can just look at the incredible depth it has on some niche topics like anime that happen to be of interest to the editor demographic (which do strain the notability criterion) and imagine that level of thoroughness on lots of other stuff like (e.g., "photobiology" is a weak page that came up hitting the random-article button). > so really the flat number of active editors shows that the number of editors actively engaged in the research and writing of entries has probably actually declined significantly since 2007. Yea, maybe, although improvements in automated maintenance tools may mean that a fixed or even decreasing number of editors could be maintaining the growing encyclopedia.