Obviously anything "can" be improved. But when articles hit a state where most of their edits are incremental additions of misc. information, rather than real contributions of encyclopedic content, I think it's worth asking whether or not that's helping anything.
FF
On 10/27/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005, at 17:16, Fastfission wrote:
In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of "frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review, no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out (hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a talk page.
Show me an article so good that it cant be improved.
And reverting can be used to do this if you really want.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l