edgarde wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream,
This already exists with GA/FA ratings. Creating a new public/internal division just adds a new front for controversy.
Not everybody pays attention to GA/FA. A public rating system where anyone can rate each article on a 0-10 scale might be controversial to implement, but on a cumulative basis would give a good statistically based valuation of the article.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Noah Salzman wrote:
... what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
The grass roots would be needed to ramp up GA/FA effort considerably. EN currently has about 5800 Good Articles (as rated), and 2400 Featured. Current article count is over 2.5 million.
That's an unrealistic expectation. How long has it taken to build up this list of 8200 articles? While the GA/FA has its usefulness, it is not scalable nor equal to the task of being a general rating mechanism.
Ec