I agree - is there any way that we could use markers or categories (maybe on the talk page) to 'certify' that articles have been checked by someone for g and s? It would limit the amount of duplication of effort, of course, it would only be much use for relatively stable articles. Mark
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
The bottom line, though, is that an encyclopedia
article shouldn't
have errors of grammar *or* fact. I know some
respected university
scholars who have problems with spelling and
grammar, but before
their writings get published, someone fixes those
problems. An
article in the Wikipedia that has problems with
spelling and grammar
clearly hasn't been through the level of review
that goes into a
student's term paper, let alone an article for the
Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Absolutely right.
I think right now we have a situation of very high average quality (esp. for articles over a certain length), but with some very important weaknesses. That's going to be the goal of a review process: to address those weaknesses while at the same time respecting and working with our community model.
I'm generally in agreement with what Erik Moeller says about this. That is, I think that it is best if one way or another our review process grows organically from our existing traditions of review for featured articles.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail