On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I guess I'm supposed to take your word for this.
No you are free to try and come up with a modle that is consitant with reality but at the same time doesn't have the diminishing returns kicking in. Of course trivualy since the amount of effort availible on the internet is finite a large enough number of articles will always bring their mean quality down.
Well, it's an opinion, not a fact, but if I recall correctly those two articles that Jimbo brought up before were quite popular and heavily edited.
And nowhere near as bad as some of the ignored dross that no one edits. The cleanup catogries are growing at an impressive rate.
I don't understand what you're getting at. In my experience most articles listed on AFD could be turned into quality short factual articles in about 5 minutes.
But they aren't.
Did you read my suggestion about replacing AFD with "Articles for Improvement"? Would that satisfy your problem with articles which require "mentanence"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cleanup_by_month
And thats just straight cleanup. The system is already overloaded.
-- geni