Positive correlation with number of editors

At the Quality Task Force we've been discussing how quality is positively correlated with the number of editors - and how it is being threatened. I'd think that expanding our coverage is subject to the same trends. As such, a major issue concerning expanding content would be the fact that our editors base is threatened. I am personally familiar with a lot of good content creation who left the project (for example, over my 5 years with WikiProject Poland, I've seen the recruitment being equal to burning out). Recovering burned out editors and reducing burn out rates should be a major priority (just as finding new ways to recruit other editors). I wonder if you'd agree with me? --Piotrus 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My understanding is that it is more related to extended conflicts between editors than simple overwork. Also hasty deletionism seems to result in early withdrawals. Sloppy inclusionism might on the other hand dilute the average quality of content.

As wp gets older, it's harder to jump in. We've added many new rules and often can't even find the guide pages for all the customs we've internalized. Getting new content without requiring all stakeholders to actually edit could be a welcome change. For example Flickr's practice with licensing results in large volumes of Commons-compatible media. We should get people, esp. those with no desire to edit wikipedia themselves, to license their current media (incl. texts) with wp-compatible licenses. Our numerous copyeditors, wikifiers and uploaders would process the data. --Ras 07:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the most crucial thing to avoid burning out editors is to develop stronger policies against just throwing away their work. We should have a policy that if you think sentence three has an unreliable source, you do not throw away the whole paragraph. Which is what people seem to do in the more contentious articles - in fact, they revert, and say nothing to the person whose work was deleted. Only if he happens to go back and look do they suggest a discussion, i.e. a discussion based on "this is too big a change to make without discussion" in the edit summary. The person trying to do good work in the article is the one who is supposed to beg and plead for the High King Reversionist to say that alright, his edit finally is up to whatever standard.

We also need better tools to answer basic questions like who the ---- deleted my edit? There's nothing more frustrating than going back over your work from two or three years ago and finding it gone, gone, gone, and you don't even really have a chance to bawl out the person responsible (who will only do it again in a month or two anyway, when you're not looking)

Perhaps I exaggerate a little, but the policy and the tools would be very welcome.

P.S. Remember that some of the drop-off is simply that the wiki was swarming with politically motivated editors leading up to the 2008 presidential election.