Personally, I did not call attention to this as anything more than an interesting experiment. In particular, the idea of actually adopting it on WP seems way premature, and I am sure the authors would agree. Nor would I ever refer to it in critiquing an article on a talk page or elsewhere in WP. At the very most, it's an experimental way of calling attention to material that might deserve a second look.
On 8/6/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/6/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
While I get your point KP, I think either you or I may have missed the working of this. I gathered that its not how long its been there, per se, but how many edits its survived more or less intact. So those physics articles, while long standing, are as you say rarely edited, and the software would not put trust into its content.
Oh, maybe. So, if it's never edited, it hasn't survived a lot of edits more or less intact, because there were no edits to survive.
Well, I came across a sad article looking at it.
I'll have to think on it some more, because I just don't think that's an indicator of accurate content.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l