On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.wooll...@gmail.com> wrote: > The number of > editors is fairly static, although there were about 25% more people > volunteering in 2006 when there were lots of new things to write about.
Staticness is a serious problem: the world is not staying still. We can't keep up with a growing world with a editor base that is static in absolute terms. Productivity improvements like anti-obvious-vandalism bots offer limited gains which can keep our heads over the rising water, temporarily, but they don't change the bigger picture. As I demonstrated earlier with my external link experiment, editors are not keeping up with even the clearest, best intentioned, highest quality suggestions. How can you hope that this means that more sophisticated and difficult tasks like anti-troll, vandalism, hoax, etc. are still being performed to past standards? Incidentally, I have been finishing an experiment involving the removal of 100 random external links by an IP; I haven't analyzed it yet, so I don't know the outcome, but this gives us an opportunity! Would anyone in this thread (especially the ones convinced Wikipedia's editing community is in fine shape) care to predict what percentage or percentage range they expect will have been reverted? Or what percentage/percentage range they would regard as an acceptable failure-to-revert rate? -- gwern _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
