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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!