a) no article;
b) an empty article; or
c) an article written from the ground up for the version of DF that the name-space represents.
My view is that
a) is useless, better to have the half right info from the last version than no article.
b) is worse than useless, what is the point of an empty article.
c) it takes less effort to correct than to start from nothing, also, the point of a wiki.
But anyway if 'they' have decided that is fine, I will start fixing things when there is base content. Or start from the 40d cut and paste if I get overly annoyed at the lack of content.
Check out the new Article Version template. It's a great little tool that links a page to all other versions of itself, so you can easily check out how something worked in 40d from the 2010 article. I've been creating placeholders with it for now.
Personally, I agree with the "leave the articles blank and re-write them from scratch for the new version" policy. I don't see how it's harder to just put up fresh, confirmed information than it is to comb through a huge article for the small details that changed. Plus, if old info is on the "current" page, then people will parrot it on the forum without testing it, causing more people to support the bad information. There are still people out there who make 6x6 rooms, not because they're in the habit from 2D, but because they've been TOLD that they still have to do that.