- Starting point
FT2 observed that quality has cost, (ie a cost-benefit issue). Perfect quality would restrict editorship so much as to make the project non-viable. So looking into their balance was important:
- "[We can ask] how much quality should we be prepared to sacrifice, to allow what level of public editorship. We can stack the odds in a huge number of ways - filtering who can edit... educate and guide... mitigate the problems of bad editors..."
- "[We can] accept problems now for benefits long term... change some ground rules that will be painful but necessary; discriminate quality areas where we have to guard ruthlessly from those we can't guard so well at this time...".
But the question remains:
- "How much quality should we be prepared to sacrifice, to allow what level of public editorship?"
- "What degree of cost to the community is "too much", ie, the point where we cannot seek more quality without undue harm in some other area?"
- General discussion
Randomran felt we had to be ready to make tradeoffs, but questioned if there was inherently a conflict requiring tradeoffs or solutions that would not require tradeoffs. FT2 agreed that some answers would improve both, but expressed concern that if we "demand too much of [quality] without careful thought... other things come under strain".
Bhneihouse felt this was an over simplification, there can be several "goals", but only one "brand", and we need to ask what would help Wikipedia stay "genuine" and to get it where it is going. Then "maybe all these growing pains I believe I am seeing as people struggle with what needs to go and what needs to remain at Wikipedia, would cease being such a struggle".