On 10/29/05, Puddl Duk <puddlduk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I hope it doesn't take another 45 years to
sift through and
organise all our submissions :)
But we are going to have to adapt or we'll be relpaced. Early in the
project any information coming in was good (a poorly written article
being better than no article, usually). As articles mature there will
be a point where they stop improving, on average, by random edits. I'm
not a fan of page freezing, I'd prefer some kind or released vs
working version, plus a mechanism for rev rolling (only for 'released'
articles). Or any other check-valve that obstructs the random
degeneration while still allowing constant improvement.
I'm not a fan of random degeneration, but I also don't subscribe to
the view that this is what is occuring. I think that just as people
know good writing when they see it, you and I will know a good edit on
articles on our watchlist.
I think the real effort should be spent on making the watchlist feature better.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused