David Gerard 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

At 01:42 -0400 28/8/06, Delirium wrote: 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///