Spot on.
But theres also real issue of ranking particular edits, relative to others. IAUI, this is a lot more processor and data intensive - a lot of metadata can be applied or drawn from each article.
SV
--- charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ed Poor wrote
*We* must decide that we want some means of
assuring readers that they are getting reliable information.
Simple - just protect decent, informative versions of pages. True, this turns a wiki into a standard static web site; but hey, people will be mightily assured.
I'm sort of amazed that the category system has't already been adapted to give some sort of 'marks out of 10' to articles. If there were real community pressure to rate articles, I think that might have happened already. What I see is only the skeleton of such as system: stub tags, featured-article status, and the reprehensible use of POV tags as comment rather than trying to sort out disputes.
Trying to think laterally for the moment. If articles were rated on a scale of 1 to 100 for excellence, the lower rungs of the ladder would correspond to poor articles, of various types: stubby, badly written, failing when judged by policy (NPOV, NOR, CYS), non-encyclopedic. This could be the basis of an automated clean-up/deletion mechanism also, but would need perhaps one other ingredient (to make a kind of 2-d plot). What should that be?
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/