On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 17:46:01 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
When did you last go to [[CAT:CSD]]? Even a 1% error rate will amount to tens of articles every day, and I don't think 1% is an unacceptably high error rate (or rather, shooting for less is probably unfeasible, given the rate of pay).
No one is arguing for an error-free system. The first question is, and clear from this thread, do we all agree on what is an "error"? You know, operation was successful, patient died.
No, I don't think we'll ever agree on what constitutes an error in every case, any more than we will ever all agree on what constitutes a notable subject, but we will mostly agree on some errors, and mostly agree on some non-errors.
We have deleted over 5,000 articles in the last 24 hours. That included an article on a "six foot tall single-celled organism, 'nuff said" and "your single source for all things mountain bike".
Fine. Neither sounds like a major Pakistani politician to me.
Oh indeed. And actually, simply being rather incomprehensible is often an indication of a good-faith user. However, when the rate of deletions runs at thousands per day, with most being completely uncontroversial, there is a tendency of CSD regulars to become hardened (which is why I don't go there often). This applies even more to newpage patrollers.
Both are "busy work" which appeals to converts. The temptation is always to try and clear the category.
Are you sure you are not being perhaps a little nostalgic here? The simple fact is, very large numbers of worthless articles are created and deleted daily, and slowing down the removal of those will likely have an exponential impact.
Well, then, there is a "shoot on sight" policy de facto, and so there is a problem.
Yes, and the problem is the overwhelming volume of vanity spam and outright nonsense we get. You have a good idea on how to solve that? I'd love to hear one.
The "new article wizard" in development has some potential here, I think.
Guy (JzG)