2009/2/21 Ben Kovitz <bkov...@acm.org>: >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton >> <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based >>> on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic >>> curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around >>> 2013-14. (It's asymptotic, but it will be pretty much there by then.) > > Is there any data on changes in the percentage of work spent on adding > new material vs. undoing damage to existing material? I'm thinking not > only of vandalism, but "clueless edits": people posting religious > evangelism, pushing pet theories, adding bogus facts to make their > country/city/whatever look more significant than it really is, > replacing good writing with bad writing, etc.
I've seen pie charts showing what proportion of edits are reverted, reverts and genuine article improvements. I can't remember where, though... > Hypothesis: The more good material there is, the more human effort it > takes to keep it from getting degraded. So, nearing the asymptote, > most serious Wikipedia editors may end up spending most of their time > doing reverts. An unpleasant thought. That's a very interesting point... FlaggedRevs may help there - if it's turned on for the entire site it would allow for more efficient RC patrol. Even with that, we may eventually hit a point where there is too much vandalism to cope with (at least with FlaggedRevs we would have a very clear metric - the age of the oldest unreviewed edit), at which point we may have to take unpleasant measures (banning anonymous editing is the obvious one - I hope we never get to the point where that is necessary...). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
