X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jun 23 22:58:07 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A41424F.8040506@post.pl>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:59:59 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <4A402B98.7030601@post.pl>	<929ed1ec0906230011y307a10eai342f366cc40a49f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906230332l1afac8b6j5f5e399564bf9faf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906230332l1afac8b6j5f5e399564bf9faf@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  radek szulga wrote: > I might steal some of these
	insights for an essay at some point. I > think there's a definite over
	emphasis on generating new content - > especially through the DYK
	awards
	- as opposed to making older > articles better - there's no
	reward/incentive system for referencing > an old, previously uncited
	article, or removing copy vio, or copy > editing or even just removing
	blatant POV. Some of the > reward/incentives for that kind of work are
	carried out through the > "Project" system but overall you get a lot
	more brownie points in > thinking up a new, sometimes even trivial,
	topic and starting from > scratch rather than working with some of the
	messes that already > exist. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] To Dig, Bio and all who are considering leaving
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  radek szulga wrote: > I might steal some of these
	insights for an essay at some point. I > think there's a definite over
	emphasis on generating new content - > especially through the DYK awards
	- as opposed to making older > articles better - there's no
	reward/incentive system for referencing > an old, previously uncited
	article, or removing copy vio, or copy > editing or even just removing
	blatant POV. Some of the > reward/incentives for that kind of work are
	carried out through the > "Project" system but overall you get a lot
	more brownie points in > thinking up a new, sometimes even trivial,
	topic and starting from > scratch rather than working with some of the
	messes that already > exist. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

radek szulga wrote:
> I might steal some of these insights for an essay at some point. I
> think there's a definite over emphasis on generating new content -
> especially through the DYK awards - as opposed to making older
> articles better - there's no reward/incentive system for referencing
> an old, previously uncited article, or removing copy vio, or copy
> editing or even just removing blatant POV. Some of the
> reward/incentives for that kind of work are carried out through the
> "Project" system but overall you get a lot more brownie points in
> thinking up a new, sometimes even trivial, topic and starting from
> scratch rather than working with some of the messes that already
> exist.

I am  not so sure about that. You can develop content and have it 
featured as GA or FA. And you can get awards for that, too. True, 
writing a DYK is easier than writing a FA, but that's hardly surprising 
considering the quality requirements.


-- 
Piotr Konieczny

"The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in 
theory."

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

