Christopher G. Parham wrote:
On 5/22/2007 5:27 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need to think about maintainability in a concrete sense as well as "notability" in an abstract one. If an article is going to need maintenance, but it isn't going to get it, it becomes a net liability to the project...
If maintenance is the problem, it would seem that tools like semi-protection would be more useful than deletion. If an article (school or not) is clearly poorly monitored, and is prone to receiving damaging vandalism (especially of the BLP/personal attack variety), I wouldn't be at all opposed to semi-protection in that case.
--Chris
I've been wanting to stop watching school articles and that's increased my concern over the state of school article maintenance. I watch about 250 schools, but most of the vandalism occurs to perhaps 10% of those. So most of my involvement is with the worst problems.
I just looked at a few dozen random school articles, including stubs and uncategorized articles, and I found less vandalism than I expected. The problem may be more limited to individual schools than I'd thought, perhaps based on factors such as having a computer lab. I did see many articles with sourcing, POV, and balance problems, but that's par for the course.
On the whole, it looks as if the school articles are not as bad as they were a year or two ago. While sometimes criticized, the school project folks have apparently made an enormous difference.
Will Beback