On 14 November 2012 12:42, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge
>> > difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three
>> > invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the
>> > OTRS
>> > e-mail address.
>> >
>> > But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be
>> > responded to
>> > the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on
>> > how
>> > quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not,
>> > there is
>> > another potential area for improvement.
>>
>> What WSQ said.
>>
>> Also, rethinking the "contact us" route is one thing, encouraging more
>> people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the
>> second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some
>> of your questions here are clearly for the WMF.
>>
>> Charles
>
>
>
> For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much
> everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things
> right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system
> we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got.

The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a
familiar argument that you are putting.

The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean
growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have
put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many
hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful
work.

Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these
matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by "case
studies" is not the best way, IMX.

What do you suggest the WMF should or could do? In my experience, they are wary of getting involved in anything that might imply they are exercising control over content, as that could conceivably jeopardise their Section 230 safe harbour protection, and leave them with liability for anonymous people's edits.

Andreas