How about a more natural approach to the function of the AfD? Many sites, including
Netflix.com, allow users to rate the articles of other users, or at least click on whether
or not these articles are helpful. At Netflix, this determines placement of the review,
with the top placed review becoming the default. Alternate reviews are easily retrievable
and could be promoted to the top place if people find them more useful for that subject.
At Wikipedia, we could add a stipulation that if most people find the entire subject of
the article not useful, it would be placed on a deletion short-list. Items on the
short-list would automatically be removed to a compressed archive if they ever go more
than thirty days without being accessed. The system could also automatically add any
article to the short-list that goes more than six months would being accessed.
The only significant source of contention at Wikipedia is when people try to unduly
influence articles. Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly influencing
articles cannot be achieved. Many sites have done this on a small basis. We can get rid
of administrators and do it on a large basis here if we are willing to let our influence
be based on the quality of our edits and not on the friends we know in high places.
Zephram Stark zephramstark(a)yahoo.com
432-224-6991
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel P. B. Smith"
<dpbsmith(a)verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 6:03 PM
From: Geoff
Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com>
is there a point in Wikipedia's size where
it's current growth
will taper off or stop? I don't mean to repeat the old chestnut that
knowledge is somehow finite: put in different words, is there a
certain
point where contributors will find it far easier to work on existing
articles than to contribute new ones?
Oddly enough, I wonder about the exact opposite. I fear that people
enjoy creating new articles far more than they enjoy editing existing
articles, and that people look desperately for topics that do not
exist yet so that they can be the first to create them. The
Wikipedian equivalent of the Slashdot FIRST POST!!!!
This means that over time a greater proportion of newly created
articles will reflect an artificial attempt to find a topic that
hasn't been "taken," and a smaller proportion will be reflect a
genuine attempt to serve potential readers.
I do not think its growth will stop. The problem is, will the quality
of the articles hold up? There's no obvious reason why it shouldn't,
and no obvious reason why it should.
One reason why it _might_ not hold up is that when Wikipedia was less
famous, contributing to it required a greater interest in the project
and a greater commitment to the project's ideals. As it becomes more
and more familiar, it is possible that we will see an increasing
proportion of new "articles" that are really paragraph-long newbie
tests.
To tell the truth, I think many of the "articles" that land on AfD
are best not regarded as articles at all, but as elaborate newbie
tests OR as badly executed article requests. I'm thinking of substubs
that convey no information at all except the fact that someone either
a) genuinely wanted an article on that topic, or b) simply wanted to
experience the pleasure of creating an article.
I've been casting "votes" recently in AfD that say "delete, and enter
a request for the article." So far, nobody but me seems to think this
is a good idea.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at
http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com