On 1 October 2011 18:15, Carcharoth <carcharot...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The assumption "Presumably anything that still remains is of > sufficient quality for whatever level the article is" has so much > wrong with it that I don't know where to start. No, if material lasts for a long period in an article it's highly likely to be fairly good even if it gets rewritten later; and the more material and the longer it lasts, the better. It's the area under the curve that matters, not whether it *eventually* gets rewritten. So time_in_article * number_of_unique_characters is probably a fairly good metric. And you could multiply by the article hit rate to get an even better metric I expect. Whereas you can get very high edit counts by many well-known ways, even breaking an edit down into many sub-edits can multiply up edit counts, or just doing lots of vandalism reverts. It is quite common for the final push for an article to be featured to > involve different editors to those that brought it to the current state. And > that often involves stepping back, taking a long hard look at the article > and the sources, and then ripping up large quantities of the article and > rewriting and rebalancing things. > So you're saying that sometimes people rewrite articles, and this contradicts my point how? > Carcharoth > > -- -Ian Woollard _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
