On 08/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Consider: if we were to enforce use of something like the new article wizard, currently being tested, would we actually reduce the flow of worthless articles on worthless subjects?
I like the sound of this. Where's it being worked on?
(This sounds like something I've been suggesting here every several months: a pre-filled article template, which experienced users can ignore, but which would give n00bs helpful pointers on what it takes to write an article that will survive.)
For example, would a four-click process be more likely than a one-click process to deter a poop vandal?
Nope.
Would an interface that guides you through sourcing be more likely to deter a 15-year-old from writing about his garage band?
Hopefully. "Verifiable, uninvolved, third-party sources."
I worked for a while on an online candidate screening system for retail job applicants. No applicant was rejected by the system, but feedback along the route made it pretty clear if you were not going to meet their requirements. The vast majority of obvious no-hopers, of the order of 90% if I recall, screened *themselves* out before they got to the final Submit button. I wonder if a similar system would work for Wikipedia?
Could be good. But too many hoops will be a PITA. Must avoid avoidable PsITA.
- d.