[Wikipedia-l] Do we really need a Sifter project?

[Erik Moeller]

Thomas-
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 05:45:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> This alone is already a kind of certification process, but it lacks one
>> component that the Sifter project provides, namely, the establishment of
>> trust by only linking to "safe" revisions of an article. This could be
>> integrated into the Brilliant Prose process relatively easily.

> As far as I know currently articles only evolve and don't get worse!
> So linking to the current version shouldn't be a mistake. Spam and
> keyboard tests are undone quickly by us Admins.
> I'd suggest that changes in BPs should get an own recent changes so we
> can control them easier.

Well, the idea of the Sifter project was to create a stable space where  
articles can *never*, by definition, be in an undesirable state. We can  
only replicate this by linking to specific revisions. Furthermore, it  
seems reasonable that substantial changes to an article would have to be  
re-approved -- while they may well make an article better, I have seen  
many articles get a lot worse by reorganizations, so-called NPOVing or  
unnecessary fluff that was added with good intentions. Aside from that,  
any Wikipedia article may at the time the reader views it contain  
something like the goatse.cx photo, or other types of vandalism, and by  
linking only to verified good revisions, we would create a kind of safe  
area where we can send Jimbo's mother without concerns for her mental  
health.

By the way, I have seen pages that were vandalized for months until  
someone fixed them.

Regards,

Erik