On 6/3/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
I agree, but I think we can make things easier for the
person who *does*
want something relatively stable, either to read or to print up in
books, without compromising the in-progress nature of the work.
I agree with this, and think the way it was phrased by Anthony was
good. To say that something is perpetually revisable does not mean it
should always need perpetual revision in order to be useful.
I don't think it would be impossible to have some
of that information
maintained in a more organized way. Basically the questions that needs
to be answered are: 1) Is this article reasonably decent? 2) If no, is
it because it's being rewritten or in flux, and if so is there a
previous version that's decent?
We do that already with the FA and the GA and things of that nature. I
think having some sort of semi-formal way to tell when things are
"done enough" to be considered worthwhile without serious further
editing is a great approach to this. I also think the V0.5/CD
templates are good too -- someone put one on [[Albert Einstein]]
awhile ago and it was removed on account of one section being marked
with a cleanup (on account of one ridiculous editor, but I won't get
into that). Though it hasn't yet generated a lot of action, I'm
certainly inspired to use this as reason to iron out that section into
something respectable, because there's no reason that an article with
Featured status should have a section cleanup tag on it for a month on
account of one editor who can't get with the program.
FF