If a new editor
> tries to create the article, they'll be informed that they need a
> familiarity with policy, an absence of a COI and several references
> (amongst other things) before the tool recommends they create it.[4] If
> they don't have those things, they'll be directed to the Article
Creation
Wizard.
I.e. you put the barriers to entry before anything else. This could be
detrimental, you know.
Quite possibly; that's why, as said below, it's an experiment. It may be
that it reduces the number of incoming articles without any substantial
increase in quality. It may be it reduces the number, but increases the
quality. It may be that by providing clearer guidance and making people
aware that they can contribute, it increases one or the other or both
without detriment. We simply don't know: but we want to find out :).
I'm particularly concerned that ham-fisted reference to the COI guideline
could
put off good and conscientious people we do want editing, while
having no effect on those who are motivated in such a way as to have an
actual COI.
Charles