We can't say from the information you're giving alone. We need information on how the individual samples relate to each other!
Remember, the information of the sequence $(X)_{i=1}^N$ of $N$ random variables $X_i, \, i=1, \ldots, N$ is:
\begin{align}
I(X=x) &= I((X_1=x_1, X_2=x_2, \ldots, X_N=x_N))\\
&\text{shorthand: }P(X_i=x_i)=:P(x_i)\\
&= I(x_1) + I((x_2, \ldots, x_N)|x_1)\\
&= I(x_1) + I(x_2|x_1)+I((x_3, \ldots, x_N)|x_1,x_2)\\
&= I(x_1) + \sum_{n=2}^N I(x_n|x_1,\ldots x_{n-1}) \tag 1\label{eq1}\\
&= -\log_2(P(x_1))- \underbrace{\sum_{n=2}^N\log_2(P(x_n|x_1,\ldots x_{n-1}))}_{:=v}\tag2\label{eq2}
\end{align}
You'll notice when considiering $v$ that all these $P(x_n|x_1,\ldots x_{n-1})$ collapse to $P(x_n)$ if, and only if, the $X_n$ are independent.
In that case, $I(X)$ simply becomes $\sum I(X_n)$. For all other cases, that sum is the upper bound for what the overall information can be, but doesn't necessarily achieve that.
Let's construct an example where all $X_N$ are Gaussian:
$X_1\sim \mathcal N(0;\sigma^2)$ is drawn from a Gaussian source.
For all $N\ge i> 1$, let $X_i= i X_{i-1}$. Then, directly, $X_2\sim \mathcal N(0; 4\sigma^2)$, and generally $X_i\sim\mathcal N(0;i^2 \sigma^2)$.
All these variables are Gaussian, but they are not independent. Let's use that with $\eqref{eq1}$:
\begin{align}
I(X=x) &= I((X_1=x_1, X_2=x_2, \ldots, X_N=x_N))\\
&= -\log_2(P(x_1))- \sum_{n=2}^N\log_2(P(x_n|x_1,\ldots x_{n-1}))\\
&= I(x_1) + \sum_{n=2}^N I(x_n|x_1,\ldots x_{n-1}) \label{eq3}\tag3\\
\end{align}
but what is e.g. $I(x_2|x_1)$? Well, it's 0, because there's no information in $x_2$ that we didn't have already through observing $x_1$! (You can also prove that formalistically by using the conditional entropy formula. But I found this more intuitive.)
The same is through for every other element of $v$.
What happens now if you take the mean of that series? Well, you get another Gaussian random variable, sure, but it has exactly the same information as the whole sequence: From the mean alone, you can trivially find the original $x_1$:
$$\bar X = \frac1N\sum_{n=1}^N X_n = \frac1N\sum_{n=1}^N n X_1=\frac1N X_1\sum_{n=1}^N n = C X_1,\;\; C\,\text{const.}$$
and therefore, the entropy of $\bar X$ is the entropy of $X$.
So, nothing's lost.
However, if all the $X_i$ are independent, but follow the same Gaussian distribution, then the mean $\bar X$ is a Gaussian variable of variance $\frac{\sigma^2}{N}$, and you lose the difference between that and $N$ times the entropy of a $\sigma^2$-variance random variable.
So, the answer to your question is in what you don't tell us:
Entropies of sources depend heavily on the conditional probabilities of their words; you need to describe a random variable in more than its instantaneous distribution.