I really like elian's idea of user-added star ratings to articles. I don't have it handy, but it was like
* pathetic stub ***** Britannica grade
Then you could set your wikiviewer to show any rating, one-star if you were looking for work, five-star if you were looking for information, etc. No bureacracy, no cabal, no weird standards for hiding information. Much more, as elian said, the wiki way.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com |Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:09:15 -0500 | |Dear M, | |Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect. | |If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either: |* read the current version, or |* use the "History" and "Diff" links |to see what you call the wild changes, before editing. | |But if a shortcut to 'edit the version currently displayed' would cause more harm than good, I have no objection to its being omitted. When I need to revert vandalism, I can just use the "History" link as always. | |Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing? | |Ed Poor |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |