[Foundation-l] Porchesia atonement

Andrew Gray shimgray at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 16:33:40 UTC 2006

On 03/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ten months is pretty extreme by en.wp hoax standards - three months is
> > the usual top of the range before it gets caught by someone, IME.
> I've never seen any data that would support that...  You know something I don't?
> I've certainly done my share of removing year old intentionally bogus
> data from enwiki...

Interesting. This is just my gut feeling based on the ones I've run
across and the ones I've seen reported; I haven't pulled together any

> The fact is that once something has survived initial review on
> watchlists and recent changes, the chances of it being fixed stay
> fairly low.  (this comment based on the curve of ages of deleted
> images, which have a spike around 7-10 days but assume a low and
> uniform deletion probability after that)

Hum. Technical study suggestion: Is it possible to identify all
VFD/AFD debates which include the word "hoax", and figure out the
age-at-deletion of all articles correspondingly deleted?

- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

More information about the foundation-l mailing list