My counter examples are two I ran across while skimming random articles. One was an outright fraud and had been up for months, and had been reflexively linked into other articles on the same topic. The other consists of articles *plural* from RoTK that were linked into Chinese history and linked as China stubs.
There is a great deal of automatic linking in and clean up behavior which is harder to rip out in case of a bad article than even increasingly cumbersome process of deletion. The pedia's community is good at making articles look good. This is a feature. We should not abuse that trust by telling people that they can put anything in it they like.
Editor time is not free, and should not be spent simply because of meta-failure to deal with issues.
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Steve wrote:
On 1/10/07, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
- I don't see how article maintenance would be slightly changed.
People would revert irrelevant additions. How is this different from what happens today? If you're saying that for some reason the load would spike, I'd definitely be interested to hear your reasoning.