I also think a fundamental difference in our reasoning is that I assume a system where each article is edited only by those with an interest in it. Thus all effort and payoffs scale along the same variable. In which articles don't affect each other when it comes to resource expenditure, since the people working on them wouldn't work on anything else.
While it seems that you envision a system that is much closer to classical a encyclopaedia with dedicated editors, where each editor handles arbitrary articles unrelated to the personal investment that he or she has in it. Thus potentially swamping those professional editors with irrelevant articles.
No, I'm assuming the current model of Wikipedia, which is inbetween. In the current Wikipedia model it is not okay for some other pages to not meet standards, even if it's all localized in one subject. That concerns Wikipedia as a whole, and not just that zone. That necessarily means that those from outside of that area of expertise will be involved.
"in the current Wikipedia model it is not okay for some other pages to not meet standards"
Why not? I mean if you mark everything as not up to standard in the beginning and gradually make them as "proper" articles, what's wrong with having crap next to gold?
While it seems that you envision a system that is much closer to classical a encyclopaedia with dedicated editors, where each editor handles arbitrary articles unrelated to the personal investment that he or she has in it. Thus potentially swamping those professional editors with irrelevant articles.
Am I correct?