SF&F quantitation theory

Quickie theory: the quality of a science fiction or fantasy author's world-building skills can be measured by the ratio of fan-generated wiki text : author's original text in novels and short stories concerning that particular universe.

I came up with this idea because there's a surprising number of Wikipedia entries regarding Garth Nix's Old Kingdom series, which is only 3 novels and one short story so far. (It's not a trilogy because he's promised at least one more novel.)

A good author should be able to write a world that is internally consistent, and describe its history, rules, characters, and other contents by context alone, spending minimal time on explanations that don't flow naturally into the story (e.g. Harry Potter being raised by Muggles and having to be shown around the wizarding world). The characteristics of being internally consistent and having a lot of interesting content that's touched on glancingly by the author gives fans a lot of material to organize into synopses, timelines, histories, protocols, etc.

I tend to dislike most books that give you a long glossary at the end, the exceptions being the Lord of the Rings and David Brin's Uplift series. Brin has a bloody menagerie of alien civilizations, but he focuses tightly on the experiences and feelings of individual characters in the narrative itself. As far as I'm concerned, if I have to keep flipping back and forth between the story and explanations in the back, I might as well be reading research papers.

I ran this idea past Krista who's one of my fantasy fiction buddies and she said it sounded workable. Anyone else agree?