Just off the top of my head, I can think of three good things that
would make it fail.
1. Many people (anons and regular users alike) protests
2. It is ineffective, that is, New Page patrollers see just as much
crap article-creations as before (and what would be the point of
restricting anons then).
3. Article growth severly stunted
(also, minor point, but if there can be, as you say, no way to tell
that it has failed, wouldn't that mean it's a roaring success?)
Look, lets just try this out for awhile. A thing like this could be
enormously effecting at reducing bad new articles/good new articles
ratio, or it might make no difference what so ever. The only way to
find out is to actually do it.
On 12/6/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
My guess is that it's an experiment that will
turn into a permanent
policy change if it turns out to be useful.
But there does not appear to be any actual criteria under which it can
be judged to fail. The only way it will be rescinded, basically, is if
Jimbo changes his mind about it being a good idea, because there's no
way he can be proven wrong about it being a good idea. No one has even
informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much
less suggested how to measure that.
One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia
(counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught
within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: