On 10/29/05, Puddl Duk puddlduk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I hope it doesn't take another 45 years to sift through and organise all our submissions :)
But we are going to have to adapt or we'll be relpaced. Early in the project any information coming in was good (a poorly written article being better than no article, usually). As articles mature there will be a point where they stop improving, on average, by random edits. I'm not a fan of page freezing, I'd prefer some kind or released vs working version, plus a mechanism for rev rolling (only for 'released' articles). Or any other check-valve that obstructs the random degeneration while still allowing constant improvement.
I'm not a fan of random degeneration, but I also don't subscribe to the view that this is what is occuring. I think that just as people know good writing when they see it, you and I will know a good edit on articles on our watchlist.
I think the real effort should be spent on making the watchlist feature better. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused