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(a)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(a)wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
|