On 10/24/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit. Effort is not a
constant,
and the more articles you have, the more contributors you'll have, and
the
more effort you'll have.
I think the term you are looking for is over simplifed modle. I know this is the case (Ew is a compersite of at least three terms). I could go go through with more complex models but the result is the same. Beyond a certian number of articles the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the average article quality starts to fall.
I guess I'm supposed to take your word for this.
Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an
equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the worst quality articles
happen
to be the articles which have the most editors, and the most effort,
spent
on them.
Prove it.
Well, it's an opinion, not a fact, but if I recall correctly those two articles that Jimbo brought up before were quite popular and heavily edited.
Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is
not going to bring the average quality of the encyclopedia down. In
fact, a
short article on an obscure topic is easy to make into a high quality
short
article on an obscure topic, and will therefore bring the average
quality of
the encyclopedia up.
However such articles don't seem to turn up at AFD much and even these articles require mentanence.
I don't understand what you're getting at. In my experience most articles listed on AFD could be turned into quality short factual articles in about 5 minutes. Did you read my suggestion about replacing AFD with "Articles for Improvement"? Would that satisfy your problem with articles which require "mentanence"?