Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain
Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as
they degrade. It happens, all right.
As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there
should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK,
maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach
the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it
as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for
instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should
take some consideration to change them.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of
coverage, not its
polished writing.
Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy
- it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful.
I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy when something
Ive written stands the test of time. But there are times when it seems
that open editing model itself was nothing more a bad idea. I guess
this idea reflects a bit of that pessimism. :-)
The 'decay into mush' point is well made. Its difficult sometimes for
one to justify to oneself the effort required to overcome mush-ism -
particularly when its an adversarial system (WP:BRD). Its the
adversarial systems which seem to be paradoxically constructive and
destructive at the same time.
-SC
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l