3 ms·

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

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)