On 14 August 2010 05:37, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Of course the older revisions remain in the
history and anybody is free to extract a
snapshot that he considers to be superior to the present one.
I just did this at [[matter]], but the issue though is that there's no
way to really see what gold exists in previous versions, unless you
know what already exists there and understand what erosion has taken
place.
I've had to investigate articles in the past and there are some
effective time-saving methods such as: looking at the editing as
composed of different waves, characterized by the identity of the
major editors; performing diffs at timely intervals (three or six
months, say) to identify large scale changes. You might miss a
shortlived improvement of course, but you still pick up on any
significant trends in degradation.