On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:06:35 -0500, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so let's assume that you want people to spend one minute checking each article before deleting it.
That's roughly 100 man-hours of work per day, 12.5 full-time equivalent posts. I don't think we have a dozen admins active on clearing the speedy deletion category on any one day.
It's a great aim in principle, but I don't think it's going to work until we can get the rate of creation down to rather more manageable levels.
Well, you're assuming that the number of admins working on clearing the speedy deletion cat would stay constant.
I'm just quantifying the work involved. I do think we are focusing too much on the symptom, and ignoring the cause.
The problem being managed is creation of worthless articles on worthless subjects.
Consider: if we were to enforce use of something like the new article wizard, currently being tested, would we actually reduce the flow of worthless articles on worthless subjects?
For example, would a four-click process be more likely than a one-click process to deter a poop vandal?
Would an interface that guides you through sourcing be more likely to deter a 15-year-old from writing about his garage band?
I worked for a while on an online candidate screening system for retail job applicants. No applicant was rejected by the system, but feedback along the route made it pretty clear if you were not going to meet their requirements. The vast majority of obvious no-hopers, of the order of 90% if I recall, screened *themselves* out before they got to the final Submit button.
I wonder if a similar system would work for Wikipedia?
Guy (JzG)