On 28 May 2010 17:29, AGK wikiagk@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, he certainly has a point. Having to wade through the nonsense that gets submitted to Wikipedia is a huge time leech. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
Mmm. I think it's unavoidable, though - perhaps the question should be how can we distribute that workload better among our many active users?
The basic problem is: the volume of crap new articles is simply a function of the volume of all contributions. If we accept articles in a way that isn't so difficult as to drive off most casual contributors, people are still going to *try* to submit junk.
Regardless of what technically happens to that submitted junk, and how many boxes they tick in the process, we'll still fundamentally have a space people can put prospective article content into, and someone has to say no to it.
The time consumption of turning it down is probably going to be approximately the same regardless of what the hurdles are... unless we come back full circle to raising the barriers so high that we significantly reduce the number of *all* articles submitted, and that's undesirable for a whole host of reasons.