Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Where is this potentially libelous material they are supposedly "loaded" with? If you are making this claim: There have in the past existed a nonzero number of libelous claims in Wikipedia articles, that's certainly a reasonable claim. But to claim they're "loaded" with such material requires some evidence.
Nine presses of random page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrisholme Thirty six presses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scot_Alan_Bittinger
It seems you're unlucky or something, because I just hit random page a full 100 times and found nothing particularly bad.
In any case, I don't think we disagree that there should be a way of tagging pages with their degree of "doneness". I don't see what that has to do with community mismanagement in need of the Foundation to fix it though---the community has in fact proposed doing just that, complete with some detailed proposals, while the Foundation certainly hasn't (see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_proposals). It hasn't actually happened yet because: 1) it's only been fairly recently (I'd say the last 6 months or so) that it's become a more pressing priority than writing content in the first place; 2) it's a fairly difficult problem to solve without falling into the bottomless pit of complex-but-gameable systems.
That said, I don't object to the Foundation prodding things along, for example by organizing a working group to come up with a more final proposal suitable for implementation. Some coordination across projects would be particularly helpful with that.
-Mark