Attracting new editors

How about this: With a probability of approximately 1/1000 (or let it be 1/10,000), when an anonymous user wants to read a small article that is not a disambiguation page (important!), the edit link is underlayed in red, and a flashy message says something like: "Did you know that you can change the content of (almost) any article by clicking the edit link above? If you can add anything to this particular article, why not try it out right now?"

Of course if we activate readers in this way there is a huge chance that they will add unsourced information and will be bitten by newbie-headhunters.

Either way, this problem is too important for us not to try it out. It's a overall idea. I somehow suspect that those stubs will be less protected, and that almost any edit to a stub will be perceived as a good one. So it's a win in the "good experience" column for new users, and it's also a win for content.

So has there been any decision as to whether or not or not to run "You can edit this page" banner ads?

I like this idea immensely, but second the concern as well.

If we're trying to get 1st time newcomers the main thing is to get them to make edits that are likely to stick and not be reverted or deleted or get warnings. For example, original research tends to be removed but accurate information with poor balance tends to be fixed and improved upon by others.

What's missing is interfacing that catches newcomers and guides them to a quick (user friendly) summary of what we look for in an article - "encyclopedicity" (a kind of topic that should exist), notability (evidence the world takes notice), at least one source, and no original research or promotion, should stand a good chance of covering it.

Also biographical articles have especially high standards and start with something else if not sure. We may want to exclude BLP stubs and stubs in certain controversial areas where it's hard to edit well without experience.