On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:30:48 -0400, Daniel P.B.Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
There's also a regression-to-the-mean-like effect. When an article is relatively undeveloped, and a random newcomer wanders in and decides to "edit this page," the chances of improvement are high. Not only because the average quality of the editors is higher than the quality of the page, but also because theor motivation is likely to be relatively pure. The main reason for wanting to edit a _low-quality_ page is that one actually knows something about the subject.
But when an article is of high quality, the people who have knowledge in the topic area are likely to leave it alone. The people who are most likely to edit it are people who want to push a point of view, or people who know much less than they think they know. The result is that the better an article is, the greater the chances that random edits will lower its quality.
I don't know if this effect actually exists -- I suspect it does -- but if there are any systemic mechanisms that impede the development of WP, we must be on the lookout for them.
I think there needs to be some mechanism in place so that when an article becomes generally regarded as good, Version 1.0 or whatever, it can be sort of locked in place. Perhaps it could be stamped with a version number, and any attempts to edit [[GoodArticle]] are automatically redirected to [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]]. Within a discussion forum, when and only when there is general consensus that [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]] is better than [[GoodArticle]], a sysop or suitably-authorized-panjandrum can move it to [[GoodArticle]].
That soulds a good idea.