Xeriphas1994
Junior Member
Posts: 165
Registered: 06-07 |
I admit I wasn't a big fan of this extension either, at first, but after seeing the current condition of a lot of articles during Gez's trial run, I'm beginning to be convinced. Yes, that means well-behaved editors like yourself have to do extra work. If you have a better idea for preventing situations like this (user made over 200 edits of dubious factual accuracy, most of which went unnoticed for months), please share.
tempun said:
Far too high to be useful. How many users have that many?
Obviously the actual number can be adjusted. But consider the many, many users who create an account only to write one or two articles, harangue everyone who questions their significance, and decorate a user page. This can drag on for 50+ edits sometimes. I think 150 would be an absolute minimum.
Wikipedia's custom is not really relevant since they have much stricter behavioral policies and big press gangs to enforce them, as well as 8 years of developing automated maintenance tools. They can be more lenient with newbies as it is much easier to spot an issue. (Even so, a lot of Wikipedia editors think the status quo is far too lax, and a system similar to this has been proposed several times.) On the Doom Wiki, I've run across garbage edits that have lasted 2 or 3 years.
If you think that the wiki is mostly complete
I think the issue is simply that it's getting too big. The number of people who edit regularly week after week has always been tiny (wait for the excitement to ease off after the fork), and actually doing maintenance is even rarer — it feels like work of course. So it's not feasible to just divide up the topic areas and assign watchlists. We need some technical means to keep the ever-growing content under control.
|
09-07-11 06:51 
