https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
--- Comment #30 from Snottywong <[email protected]> 2011-08-09 06:55:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #29) > We have buckets and buckets of hard data that says this change will harm the > encyclopedia. The fact that it was ignored by those who push for this change > doesn't make it any less relevant or accurate. If you somehow missed it the > previous fifty times we published it, I suppose you can find yourself a stack > of links to it by reading the latest Signpost; it was a big topic at > Wikimania. Please provide a link showing actual hard data (i.e. non-theoretical proof and/or experimental evidence) which specifically shows that restricting non-autoconfirmed editors from creating new articles will create a significant decline in new editor retention, and/or damage (and possibly kill?!) the entire project. I sincerely doubt you can, since to my knowledge it's never been attempted before. Thus, why we would like to attempt it, so that we can base our beliefs on evidence rather than gut feelings. > And what a lot of new page patrollers seem to miss is this: If the workload is > so high, why are you so intent on eliminating the funnel of potential new > patrollers? Are you familiar with the actual hard statistical data which shows that nearly three-quarters of all articles created by non-autoconfirmed editors are deleted, most of which are deleted immediately? See comment 8 above. > It's a weird form of self-harm going on here. Are you suggesting that you think hundreds of editors have secretly banded together with the intent to harm Wikipedia by restricting non-autoconfirmed editors from creating new articles? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
