On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:35 PM, William Pietri wrote:
As for utility, I think like interestingness, it's a hard one to pin down because it's more about the reader's reaction. It's also somewhat in competition. [[Period table]] and the conversion chart on [[Ring size]] aren't so interesting, but they sure are useful. Personally, I'd rank utility higher than interestingness as a criterion for article goodness, with accuracy higher still.
I figure interesting should be broadly construed. "Useful" falls under my conception of it.
-Phil