Hi!
But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- "SOFIXIT" does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the bragging rights of a "Top 40" web site without changing its quality standards to match.
Top30. Nearly. :) Anyway, from a majority view of non-contributing users (or AApatheticW) site is good as is. This is the content trade off and it will always be. Accepting possibility of being wrong is charm, and it attracts more and more users. Because they find information, even when it is wrong. It could be top3 website and still have accidental asspuss images on mainpage. It shows strength of a project, not weakness.
Our rating systems would always be public and open source, and if anyone wished, they could always abuse them.
People working on content shouldn't be forced to work on ratings or validation. It is a waste of time for what was nearly efficiently handled before. And there's something worse than non-rated content, it's wrongly rated content. Who is going to rate those who do ratings? A regular contributor may not have power and resources to establish ratings for his version, when a PoV pusher applies some new methodology of rating manipulation.
Personally I see it as a complex issue, in community, software and hardware. I'd be happy if anyone could change my views. ;)
Domas
P.S. We should better preach gospels: http://www.forbes.com/lists/ 2005/14/CH0027.html