-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Delirium wrote:
Well, that's why I think we *should* have review
processes of some
sort. Then if a reader sees an unreviewed article, they are indeed in
the situation you describe. But if a reader sees an article that has
been reviewed as at least "pretty good" by people who know something
about the field, then they can rest assured that nothing obvious is
wrong about it. For what it's worth, I do think we should have a
different process of reviewing than good/featured, but that's been
talked about at length before.
(snip)
-Mark
Yeah but people still wouldn't know if the article had changed since it
was deemed 'pretty good'.
Cynical
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFHv92g8fvtQYQevcRAjbhAJ4kO65VqvmQBkQFcACdq7tu8LpIHACeOWuU
Z9FVgy0GEHSPeQ+gIwIxLt4=
=hOLx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----