3 ms·
> Changes to editor tools and processes don't cut it. All of those exist in service of improving Wikipedia as a resource. If I can't see those changes as an end
by croon 7y ago
> Changes to editor tools and processes don't cut it. All of those exist in service of improving Wikipedia as a resource. If I can't see those changes as an end-user, I question whether any of them really mattered.
Honest question: How would we as end-users know if information quality went up due to work-reducing changes to editor and administrator tools?
Being pragmatic I agree that there needs to be some saleswork involved in actually getting donations, but I don't like that this is true. It has nothing to do with the quality of the job being done, but simply visualizations of stuff (representative or not) that potential donors want before opening their purse strings.
- wyattpeak 7y agoI don't doubt that the quality has gone up. I have rather more trouble believing that the quality has gone up 3200 times. We can talk all we want about the nonlinearity of cost, but that's such an enormous jump that the idea that a, by your own suggestion, possibly unnoticeable increase in quality is worth the cost beggars belief.