Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu writes:
In summary, I don't see why you think this is *necessary*, but it'd be nice to be able to refer to certified versions if I want to get a specific trusted group's opinion on something. I can't imagine every surfing Wikipedia with a restricted view, but I can certainly imagine checking out the certified versions. I just hope that participating in this is always *optional*, never *default* (at the main Wikipedia site).
I was also thinking about ways of establishing a sort of quality control for the future. Random article, an overfull recentchanges, pages needing attention and search for short articles may not ever suffice for quality control.
Why not put a little rating system (which could be turned on or off in user settings) below each article? four checkboxes: - major improvements needed (pure stub or really bad article...) - minor improvents needed (some information missing, bad spelling or style...) - fine article - excellent article
People looking for articles to work on could consult a function which lists articles with bad ratings People looking for excellent articles could call a opposite function.
This would serve as a future, easier to handle equivalent of "pages needing attention" and "excellent articles" (without necessarily giving these pages up)
If we do rating, let's do it the wiki way ;-)
greetings, elian