Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
After a lot of math, I found that we'd need 45
people to do this
over 3 years. Although this makes it seem impossible, think how long
and how many people it would take to make wikipedia.
How'd you get that figure? I'm trying to make estimates, too.
If 75,000 articles is a goal, and we require 2 independent 'sign-offs'
on a version of an article, then we need 150,000 'sign-offs'. If we
have 100 people doing 10 a day each, that's 1,000 a day for 150 days.
Obviously, we'd have some people doing 25 a day, and some doing 1 a
month, and some doing 10 a month, etc.
It would be nice if we had a feature of the software
for this reviewing thing. It could give a random page
from a subset of wikipedia yet to be reviewed, and
then you'd edit it. After editing it, you would say if
it is britannica-quality yet. If two people said yes
for the same article, it would be taken out of the
subset of articles to be reviewed.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
It could still be edited, but it would be assumed that
all new edits
would be checked and if they were destructive, the article would be
returned to encyclopedic quality.
My thinking is that it could still be edited OF COURSE, because we
don't want to interrupt the wikipedia flow. But if it's edited, well,
maybe we come back and reapprove a newer version, or maybe we don't.
The approval is for a specific version, not for the canonical URL, so
even if an article gets all screwed up after approval, hey, that's
just part of the wiki process.
--Jimbo