I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"?

Who would rather have more articles than better articles?

Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better articles?

Those of us that can do the maths. The relivant caculation is: I don't remember ever learning that one in my math class.

On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote: constant, the I think the term you are looking for is over simplifed modle. I know this is the case (Ew is a compersite of at least three terms). I could go go through with more complex models but the result is the same. Beyond a certian number of articles the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the average article quality starts to fall.

Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an happen spent Prove it.

Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is fact, a short quality of However such articles don't seem to turn up at AFD much and even these articles require mentanence.

So deletion is the only solution to something that is low quality? I would think making it higher quality would also suffice.

Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much rather have better articles than more articles. However 1) I think deletion is a waste of time that could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, I think you can have more articles *and* better articles. So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's called a strawman argument.

Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent to allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you allowed editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until then it isn't.

2)Errr that isn't happening. I disagree.

Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete everything?

Is that sarcasm or something? You're not seriously suggesting that Wikipedia become more like Uncyclopedia, are you?

On Mon 24 Oct 2005, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote: I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"? Who would rather have more articles than better articles? Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better articles?

low-quality is I'm not sure you're referring to the same issue as Daniel, but you do raise a major one. What tools do you think we need more of to ensure that something happens? I think the Requests for Comments page is a good idea for how to resolve these types of problems, but last time I followed it (many months ago) it was more about trying to get someone banned than about resolving problems with articles. Looking at the page again it seems it's been reorganized and more focused around "Article content disputes". But it's just a bunch of links to talk pages, so in that sense it's probably not focussed enough to do much good. Do you think the RfC page could be adapted to resolve these issues more easily? I don't know if it could or not. It takes a lot of effort to argue your point effectively, and it's pretty easy for a troll to game the system until you give up. This is a really tough problem, somewhat inherent in the concept of a wiki, and I don't have much of a clue how to resolve it. Initially I saw Wikipedia as more of a rough draft than a finished product. Over the years it's been made abundantly clear that the majority of Wikipedians don't see it that way. I've come to accept that, but I guess I never really figured out how it would work. Along those same lines, I've never heard anyone explain how you could solve the quality problems inherent in a wiki without throwing out all the advantages. Nowadays my greatest optimism is that we'll be able to point to the highest quality version of any particular article, even if it isn't the most recent version. So in your example, the POV pusher might be able to make his/her version the latest version, but the software would still recognize that most people consider that version to be POV. I suppose if you're going to that you might as well just make that version the latest version, though. So now I've come full circle. I don't know. :) Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l