On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:35 PM, William Pietri wrote:
As for utility, I think like interestingness, it's
a hard one to pin
down because it's more about the reader's reaction. It's also somewhat
in competition. [[Period table]] and the conversion chart on [[Ring
size]] aren't so interesting, but they sure are useful. Personally,
I'd
rank utility higher than interestingness as a criterion for article
goodness, with accuracy higher still.
I figure interesting should be broadly construed. "Useful" falls
under my conception of it.
-Phil