At 01:42 -0400 28/8/06, Delirium wrote:
[...]
I have the same opinion. Most of the improvements to Wikipedia that
have been ongoing, like requiring citations, improve the average quality
of articles. At any given second, though, the quality can always be
quite abysmal. A system like this one essentially smooths out the
presented version, so the average reader sees something more like the
average recent state of the article, rather than its instantaneous
state. That doesn't magically make articles good, but it reduces the
number of times people see really bad articles.
-Mark
I have another reason to speak against this. As an editor, I
sometimes create an article that is very small, a few words. At the
point, I discover a few pages that link to this article and so I know
that article has some importance.
Also, stubs are great for attracting attention(!). Sometimes, stubs
attract a request for deletion, but in fact the article will grow a
reasonable state (see reference below). If deleted, nobody will see
it. If hidden from general view, then it will only be seen by the
upper class of editors, who may not be aware of the (potential)
significance of the article.
Gordo,
Drifting on the B Ark.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Palumbo%2C_Baron_Palumbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Palumbo%2C_Baron_Palumbo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///