I don't like metacomments, especially if they are personalized like "I will add this later" or "Add the date if you know it", "if you are from London, join in", etc. I think that in rare circumstances, they can be useful to the reader though. When I write about a topic and I know that I omitted a major aspect of it, because I ran out of time or I don't know enough, then I sometimes add a metacomment to the article, informing the reader of the omission. That way, they won't walk away thinking they got the full story. It's just a matter of honesty in that case, and it's especially important if people want to use the article as reference material. Axel __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com

On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 02:07:34PM +0100, Khendon wrote: I disagree. I don't know about the WikiProject references, but 'is this correct?' and 'more should be written about <whatever>' both seem valuable to me. I prefer an article which points out its weaknesses to one which glosses them over; I think it's more useful to the reader, as well as more encouraging to potential editors. I don't think there's anything unprofessional about work in progress. In general, if someone thinks its worth their while to add something to a page, I think it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it's something you wouldn't have added yourself. -M-