Delirium wrote:
No one has even informally defined what it would mean for it to be "successful", much less suggested how to measure that.
One possible criterion: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia (counting new page creation and edits to existing pages) decreases.
Another one: The overall number of bad edits on Wikipedia not caught within [x] hours (again counting both) decreases.
Is anyone prepared to measure either of these, or some other useful statistic?
Those two are, quite obviously, difficult to measure. Indeed, it is very hard to come up with appropriate simple metrics, and so I think what we need to do instead is take a holistic approach. We have a rough idea of the tradeoffs here, and we can see if things are working out the way we expect.
" * As a new page patroller, the new system does seem to be working. It's pleasant to be spending more time fixing useful articles, and less time getting rid of newbie tests. Kappa 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)"
That's a valid voice. But only one. What problems are we seeing?
Netoholic gathered some first-pass statistics: Before After New pages 2050 1622 Article deletions 1309 929 New users 3241 6370 (!)
The increase in number of users seems out of proportion; he theorizes that this has more to do with our massive press coverage than anything else. It'll like some more time to really assess this.
--Jimbo