On 6/28/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
A proposal is discussed that suggest that something "needs" to be done.
This need is not substantiated but it is assumed to be there. The idea
of a bell-curve is an argument that Jimmy used in one of his
presentations to point out to alarmists that there is a perceived crisis
but not much of an actual crisis. However, given the volume of pictures
that end up on Commons, I can understand and sympathise with the people
who deal with this to some extend.
So unless we can prove there is a crisis we can change nothing?
I can't speak for the others in this thread, I don't believe there is
a crisis here, at least not any that this move will solve.
I believe that change reduce the amount of, likely low quality,
submissions we must delete. I don't cry over the loss of these today,
rather I believe this move is simply and clearly correct. I also look
forward to an increased opportunity to interact with our submitters
and hopefully encourage them to submit more.
The objections I've heard thus far seem to be some vague worries about
decreasing openness, concerns that we will substantially decrease
uploading by requiring one more step, and Gerard's concern which
appears to be the belief that we're motivated to make this change by
some form of panic.
I can only respond by saying that this change will not inhibit anyone
but the unwilling from uploading it's an extra step but not a
prohibition, that the numbers (in my prior post) suggest to me that
any decrease in uploads could very well be offset by a decline in
deletions, and that I'm not panicked.