2009/9/27 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>om>:
Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. I don't see why notability should
be a factor.
Notability might be the wrong word. 'Degree of interest' is perhaps
the more accurate term. No interest = no page views = no checks
for... topical completeness, bland writing, wandering organization,
politicized emphasis, or casual stigmatizing slander...
Indeed. It was clear what you meant and I interpreted it in that light.
review edits in chronological order (for sighting, anyway -
quality is different matter entirely).
You lost me at "people should," which, in contexts where the 'herding
cats' metaphor is relevant, is actually quite a misnomer.
Ok, replace that with "In my opinion the best outcome would result
from people". While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
on enwiki don't pick and choose which edits to review, and I > can't see why
dewiki would be any different.
RC goes by too fast to 'patrol,' so maybe there is some better word
for what humans are actually doing in that data stream. "Sampling,"
Indeed, but FlaggedRevs will fix that problem - people will know which
edits haven't already been reviewed because they will the ones on
Special:OldReviewedPages. (Or, if we don't have all pages under
review, the patrolled revisions feature that will be implemented on
enwiki at the same time as FlaggedRevs [as I understand it] achieves
the same goal.)
So don't forget to factor in the ratio between
en.wiki's and de.wiki's
EPM counts - mod the IP to user/admin ratios for each.
Very true, but I don't think there is actually that large a
difference. I will look it up...
In August 2009, enwiki had 40857 users making more than 5 edits and 4
million edits, giving a ratio of 98 edits per active user.
In the same month, dewiki had 6864 such users and 720,000 edits,
giving a ratio of 105 edits per active user.
That difference doesn't look significant to me. I know those aren't
exactly the statistics you asked for, but I think they give a good
impression and were very easy to find. If we consider highly active
users (>100 per month), then enwiki had 4113 and dewiki 1000, giving
dewiki relatively more highly active users than enwiki, which I would
expect to mean dewiki would handle such reviews better than enwiki. It
will be interesting to see what happens... (we may only find out if
the community are willing to turn on reviews for all articles if it
appears we will be able to cope).