Well, the combination of * the number of watchers and * the time passed since the last edit could give an indication that the article is more reliable than the average wikipedia article. An article that is watched by 2 people as wasn't edited for a week should be OK, as well as one watched by 10 people with the last edit 2 days ago. Also, the ratio of total number of edits per "article existence" could give a clue - an article that has been edited a lot is more likely to have evolved to something reliable.
Articles deemed "reliable" by such a system could display an icon, like a greenlight or something. Of course, I'm aware that it would miss many reliable articles, and deem some crappy ones reliable. A manual approval system would be a lot better in results, but more work.
Magnus
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
The info you are requesting will buy you nothing. Even if you know the article was accessed by a watcher after the last edit you cannot be sure he read it and corrected errors. database wise it should be simple to implement and since only some numbers are involved, the operation should eat that much resources if properly done.