On 10/24/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit.
Effort is not a
constant,
and the more articles you have, the more
contributors you'll have, and
the
more effort you'll have.
I think the term you are looking for is over simplifed modle. I know
this is the case (Ew is a compersite of at least three terms). I could
go go through with more complex models but the result is the same.
Beyond a certian number of articles the law of diminishing returns
kicks in and the average article quality starts to fall.
I guess I'm supposed to take your word for this.
Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an
equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the
worst quality articles
happen
to be the articles which have the most editors,
and the most effort,
spent
on them.
Prove it.
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.
Keeping around a short factual article about an
obscure topic is
not going to bring the average quality of the
encyclopedia down. In
fact, a
short article on an obscure topic is easy to make
into a high quality
short
article on an obscure topic, and will therefore
bring the average
quality of
the encyclopedia up.
However such articles don't seem to turn up at AFD much and even these
articles require mentanence.
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. Did you read my suggestion about replacing AFD with "Articles for
Improvement"? Would that satisfy your problem with articles which require
"mentanence"?