3 ms·

Why should someone sacrifice MORE of their valuable time and effort to get their contribution accepted, and follow a script or process? This is volunteer work.

Why should someone sacrifice MORE of their valuable time and effort to get their contribution accepted, and follow a script or process? This is volunteer work. They can take it or leave it, but they don't get to complain that people stop being interested in contributing when their Truth By Committee design blows up in their face.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>they don't get to complain that people stop being interested in contributing when their Truth By Committee design blows up in their face. Enough people remain that I doubt they are really hurting for more contributors. But yeah, that's a good part of why more technical or niche topics can be spurious. But at the same time, less people visit those pages so it hurts the site less.
falserum 3y ago
All contributions in the world follow some kind of process, even if informal. (E.g. you politely wait in line to drop off your generous donation)
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  And you think that validates it? Not all processes are created equally, and if the process is too much trouble, you won't get contributions. If Goodwill didn't have a dock where I could drop things off and an employee to put it where it needs to be, I wouldn't donate. You incentivize contribution by lowering the barriers to it.
  - falserum 3y ago
    You are correct, I agree. Lowering barrier affects contribution positively. But I would argue, that it affects quantity and quality in significantly different ways. Meaning that quantity is increased vastly more of the two. Average quality most probably decreases. I.e. given high barrier only the most dedicated are donating, which affects quality positively. Wikipedia wants to strike some balance between quality and quantity. (At this moment probably push towards quality) Edit: Where wikipedia clearly fails, is effectively communicating which contributions are desired, ahead of time. People spending time with good intentions only to finally get rejected, is definitely suboptimal outcome for both sides. (Negative emotions, wasted time, decreased chance of further contributions, bad publicity)

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>they don't get to complain that people stop being interested in contributing when their Truth By Committee design blows up in their face. Enough people remain that I doubt they are really hurting for more contributors. But yeah, that's a good part of why more technical or niche topics can be spurious. But at the same time, less people visit those pages so it hurts the site less.

falserum 3y ago

All contributions in the world follow some kind of process, even if informal. (E.g. you politely wait in line to drop off your generous donation)

zlg_codes 3y ago
And you think that validates it? Not all processes are created equally, and if the process is too much trouble, you won't get contributions. If Goodwill didn't have a dock where I could drop things off and an employee to put it where it needs to be, I wouldn't donate. You incentivize contribution by lowering the barriers to it.
- falserum 3y ago
  You are correct, I agree. Lowering barrier affects contribution positively. But I would argue, that it affects quantity and quality in significantly different ways. Meaning that quantity is increased vastly more of the two. Average quality most probably decreases. I.e. given high barrier only the most dedicated are donating, which affects quality positively. Wikipedia wants to strike some balance between quality and quantity. (At this moment probably push towards quality) Edit: Where wikipedia clearly fails, is effectively communicating which contributions are desired, ahead of time. People spending time with good intentions only to finally get rejected, is definitely suboptimal outcome for both sides. (Negative emotions, wasted time, decreased chance of further contributions, bad publicity)