22:
81:
53:
145:
204:. On many technical articles, I have seen wannabe researchers inserting their own papers, and performing self-promotions that go unnoticed. It is happening everywhere now, given the high exposure of Knowledge. Thus technical articles are getting to be really non-representative of the state of the art. What will stop this trend? I do not see an immediate solution, under current policies.
67:
310:. But that should be clarified and somehow we need to say that the number of states grow far more rapidly than might be expected. It already says: "Possible bad versions are immensely more numerous than good ones." A similar idea has been that random key presses on a typewriter may eventually type in Hamlet by chance after many, many centuries, etc.
286:
is giving me pause. I don't think "arithmetic" and "geometric" are really what's meant, but being a mathematical idiot I'm hesitant to replace them. ("Linear" and "logarithmic" come to mind, but I'm pretty sure those aren't the ticket either.)
210:
Anyway, this is a very good start and a very good idea. I would, however, suggest a more formal name, so it will be taken seriously and eventually become widely accepted. Let us try and get this in very good shape by the end of 2012.
235:
158:
334:
125:
258:), "plug" being slang for "shoot" but also having quite different connotations (plugging a leak, i.e., good content will drain unless we plug the holes before they get too big)?
282:
Possible bad versions are immensely more numerous than good ones – an arithmetic progression in quality corresponds to geometric progression in number of states.
344:
135:
88:
226:
Sure, why not? There's much worthwhile insight to be found here. Regarding the name, I rather like something colorful and memorable, like
339:
97:
231:
66:
58:
33:
101:
227:
251:
243:
154:
315:
216:
307:
303:
39:
311:
212:
292:
263:
238:, which are taken seriously enough, even if the latter's full title is hardly ever used. Problem is,
247:
188:
93:
288:
259:
239:
96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
255:
328:
201:
319:
296:
267:
220:
187:
For the paths to quality/reliability vs degradation, please consider some form of
191:. That at times helps clarify issues, and is widely used in various industries.
144:
80:
52:
181:
I am glad you started this. It was about time. Some immediate comments are:
236:
Knowledge:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
15:
143:
335:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
8:
161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
49:
7:
302:Technically he is correct in that a
21:
19:
38:It is of interest to the following
345:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
100:. For a listing of essays see the
14:
200:One of the main threats I see is
86:This page is within the scope of
250:)? Maybe too violent. How about
79:
65:
51:
20:
1:
232:Knowledge:Don't poke the bear
130:This page has been rated as
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
89:WikiProject Knowledge essays
113:Template:WikiProject Essays
361:
306:grows much faster than an
340:NA-Class Knowledge essays
151:
129:
74:
46:
320:16:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
297:09:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
268:09:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
228:Knowledge:Shoot it early
221:20:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
252:Knowledge:Plug it early
244:Knowledge:Kill it early
308:arithmetic progression
284:
274:Arithmetic? geometric?
155:automatically assessed
148:
136:project's impact scale
304:geometric progression
280:
153:The above rating was
147:
242:is already taken.
149:
34:content assessment
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
352:
189:Ishikawa diagram
177:Initial comments
152:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
94:Knowledge essays
83:
76:
75:
70:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
360:
359:
355:
354:
353:
351:
350:
349:
325:
324:
276:
179:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:essay directory
64:
61:
12:
11:
5:
358:
356:
348:
347:
342:
337:
327:
326:
323:
322:
275:
272:
271:
270:
208:
207:
206:
205:
195:
194:
193:
192:
178:
175:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
150:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
357:
346:
343:
341:
338:
336:
333:
332:
330:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
283:
279:
278:This sentence
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
190:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
176:
160:
156:
146:
142:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
285:
281:
277:
209:
180:
131:
87:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
312:History2007
254:(shortcut:
246:(shortcut:
230:. Consider
213:History2007
329:Categories
289:Rivertorch
260:Rivertorch
132:Low-impact
98:discussion
62:Low‑impact
240:WP:SHOOT
256:WP:PLUG
248:WP:KILL
134:on the
202:WP:COI
157:using
107:Essays
59:Essays
36:scale.
28:This
316:talk
293:talk
264:talk
234:and
217:talk
159:data
126:Low
331::
318:)
295:)
266:)
219:)
314:(
291:(
262:(
215:(
138:.
104:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
