For years, the difficulty to edit articles is a known recurent problem, because some patrollers too hardly revert without seeing the interest of not perfect new edits.
A part of this problem is the lost of sources.
All evaluations bellow are statistic indications, never a judgement and only humans can decide.
Wikipedia sources are the base of wikipedia then we can search a way to estimate and preserve them.
In each domain, science, litterature, politic, sport... we can/could estimate:
- original repositories (reviews, papers, authors, ...)
- comment repositories (reviews, papers, authors, ...)
- editing users: how many source by edit? Which means sources quality?
- patrollers: how many keep of ligth or absent sources? Which means sources quality?
- patrollers: how many lost of good sources? Which means sources quality?
We can/could statistically estimate new citations from:
- from behind estimations
- classic official estimations (from public citations, nobel price...)
- previews number of uses in wikipedia for each repository, author...
- previews edit from a user for each repository, author...
- previews uses in wikipedia from number of uses
We can/could display the statistic quality of sources:
- to help patrollers in estimation of the sources and the editing user
- in watchlist : short display (one or some numbers about source and user)
- in history diff edit : detailed display
We can/could automatize the check of links to sources and alert to repair them:
- alert the user who gave the source
- alert some patrollers who have work on the page