That's true. There are people who argue (strongly) that speed is the enemy of quality. I disagree. While everybody has a speed which is too fast for them to be able to do quality work, that speed is different for each person.
Many years ago, I used to work through a temp agency, and one kind of gig that I would get on a regular basis was helping companies do stock inventories. The person supervising us temps would always caution us that accuracy was more important than speed. But after I had done those kinds of gigs enough times, I got to be pretty fast at it. I used to worry that that would upset the client, but one client told me that I had the lowest rate of errors out of all the batch of temps they had in on that occasion. So I stopped worrying about it and just worked at the speed that worked for me.
I suspect that, if somebody studied these kinds of tasks, they'd end up with what's called a "bathtub" curve: at the slowest rate of working, the accuracy is probably lower, because the worker gets bored at having to go so slow, and isn't paying enough attention. Then, the accuracy would rise as the worker reaches the optimum speed range for them, and then drop again as the rate gets too fast for them to keep up. (I'm trying to banish the image of Lucille Ball trying to work on an assembly line in a chocolate factory from my mind, but that's something like what I'm talking about.)
The trouble is that some people assume that the slower you go, the more accurate you're going to be. And some people assume that anybody who is working faster than they are "must not be doing it right". But life isn't that way. At many things, pretty much anybody could work both faster and better than I can. At some things, I'm actually both faster and better than other people. (It would be nice if the tasks that I can do faster and better actually paid well...)
The main point that I keep coming back to again and again is that people are different. I mean, really different. Not just that people can differ wildly from one another in all kinds of ways (height, weight, speed, agility, ability to work out the square roots of large numbers in their heads, etc.), but that the number of ways in which people can differ from one another is immense.
Then, too, they way people like to work is yet another way in which people differ. Some people prefer to work on one profile until it's "done" (whatever their definition of "done" is), and not move on to another profile until then. Other people like to whip through a whole list of people, adding one thing, then going back and adding another thing, then going back a third time and adding still more, and so on.
The information gets added to the tree either way, so it's all good. The problem comes when people try to impose their preferences on other people. If we were talking about a work situation, where people were being paid to contribute to WikiTree, that might be acceptable. (Well, for some people. Personally, I refuse to work for people who try to micromanage like that. What matters is -- or at least should be -- that the job gets done, not whether I paint the wall from left to right or right to left.) But with a project like WikiTree, which depends entirely on work contributed by volunteers, getting all picky about how people work is a really good way to drive people away. (And, since we're ad-supported, driving people away reduces the ad income on the site, thereby threatening the continued existence of this sandbox that I love playing in so much, so it really annoys me.)
