On 3/31/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
We either do that by
- drastically lifting notability thresholds to reduce the number of
biographies to a level we can manage to maintain and monitor.
OR
- introducing a strong quality threshold, where we don't include, or
swiftly delete, articles that aren't currently up to it. Yes, in theory they can be fixed, and if someone is actually willing to do it, then fine; but most wont be fixed and should not hang around 'because in an ideal wiki we'd fix them'
Both options rely on removing content. Option 1 would lead to deletion of perfectly sourced content that needs little maintainance just to make things manageable which would greatly affect our coverage and not neccesarily get rid of problem material.
Option 2 focuses on removing material instead of fixing it. We shouldn't let stuff lie around for years waiting for fixes, but a certain amount of eventualism is certainly desireable.
There's plenty of less drastic solutions that will move towards the goal at a slower pace without disrupting the current encyclopedia. If quality control isn't scaling, quality control in a short time period isn't going to work any better. I believe the solution to be improving quality control in Wikipedia through targetted WikiProjects, bots and anti-vandalism type programs like VandalProof aimed at fixing new articles as they come in.
I offer you: Option 3) Stem the tide of new unsourced material by monitoring new articles and organizing a long term effort to cite all existing articles.
And I also offer a question. How much time would it take to give all currently tagged articles sources? Long articles require more research and more time and articles about old subjects may require hard to get sources and library trips to dusty archived books. I don't think it's realistic to expect all this to get cleaned up in anything less than a year unless every active Wikipedian pitches in. We need to answer this question before we can build any kind of realistic time plan.
Mgm