> Now to comment on your suggestion: I think this is
fundamentally
> unworkable. Articles can change rapidly,
Yes, some articles do change rapidly. Some articles
change *very
slowly* (like one substantive edit per 6 months, or even slower). This
method is not appropriate for articles which are not stable. But the
vast majority of Wikipedia articles *are* stable. When we've got all
the stable articles fully referenced, we can work out a way to handle
the last 2% or so that change quickly. This is not a issue of
feasibility, just a ~2% limit on the domain for which this applies.
Yes. We have the numbers to prove this (see earlier posts to this
list). Almost all articles are uncontroversial. (A large proportion of
articles don't even have a talk page yet.)
Although intense discussion focuses on the small percentage of
troublesome articles, we must always keep in mind that these are the
*exceptions*. And that edge cases make bad law.
(The last is the problem with AFD - almost all deletions are
uncontroversial, it's the rest that make it troublesome.)
- d.