Wikipedia talk:Shoot it early

Initial comments
I am glad you started this. It was about time. Some immediate comments are:


 * For the paths to quality/reliability vs degradation, please consider some form of Ishikawa diagram. That at times helps clarify issues, and is widely used in various industries.


 * One of the main threats I see is WP:COI. On many technical articles, I have seen wannabe researchers inserting their own papers, and performing self-promotions that go unnoticed. It is happening everywhere now, given the high exposure of Wikipedia. Thus technical articles are getting to be really non-representative of the state of the art. What will stop this trend? I do not see an immediate solution, under current policies.

Anyway, this is a very good start and a very good idea. I would, however, suggest a more formal name, so it will be taken seriously and eventually become widely accepted. Let us try and get this in very good shape by the end of 2012. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? There's much worthwhile insight to be found here. Regarding the name, I rather like something colorful and memorable, like Shoot it early. Consider Don't poke the bear and Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, which are taken seriously enough, even if the latter's full title is hardly ever used. Problem is, WP:SHOOT is already taken. Kill it early (shortcut: WP:KILL)? Maybe too violent. How about Plug it early (shortcut: WP:PLUG), "plug" being slang for "shoot" but also having quite different connotations (plugging a leak, i.e., good content will drain unless we plug the holes before they get too big)? Rivertorch (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arithmetic? geometric?
This sentence"Possible bad versions are immensely more numerous than good ones – an arithmetic progression in quality corresponds to geometric progression in number of states."is giving me pause. I don't think "arithmetic" and "geometric" are really what's meant, but being a mathematical idiot I'm hesitant to replace them. ("Linear" and "logarithmic" come to mind, but I'm pretty sure those aren't the ticket either.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically he is correct in that a geometric progression grows much faster than an arithmetic progression. But that should be clarified and somehow we need to say that the number of states grow far more rapidly than might be expected. It already says: "Possible bad versions are immensely more numerous than good ones." A similar idea has been that random key presses on a typewriter may eventually type in Hamlet by chance after many, many centuries, etc. History2007 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)