[WikiEN-l] Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Sun Jan 22 23:52:35 UTC 2006

David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [060123 10:38]:

> By the way, Kim Bruning and Gmaxwell just ran numbers on Wikipedia articles
> which might actually support Pure Wiki Deletion as a generally good idea.
> I desperately await Kim's writeup, 'cos I doubt Greg's going to make one.
> But it's the first thing I've seen resembling evidence. Basically, over 90%
> of Wikipedia articles have one or two editors, and only 100-200 (out of
> 900k) have over 100 editors, and Kim thinks there's a good case for
> declaring all those prima facie pathological until firmly proven otherwise.
> So (1) being big does not mean we have to go from consensus to voting and
> (2) does not mean AFD is the only possible way to run a deletion mechanism.
> Fantastically interesting stuff.

Gmaxwell has left the project, which is annoying for many reasons, and this
reason is because the scripts and such he was running are on the
toolserver. But here's two diagrams to start you off:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png

That's how many editors per article. Note that ALMOST ALL articles have one
editor, maybe two. And only 200 or so have over 100 editors (123 over 1000
editors), and almost all those are way overedited for the wiki process
(e.g. G.W. Bush, which is THE busiest article on the wiki and arguably
pathological).

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png

- same thing as above in CDF. Breakdown of editors per article.

- d.