Obviously anything "can" be improved. But when articles hit a state
where most of their edits are incremental additions of misc.
information, rather than real contributions of encyclopedic content, I
think it's worth asking whether or not that's helping anything.
FF
On 10/27/05, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005, at 17:16, Fastfission wrote:
In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort
of "Vote for
Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the
opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby
people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article
was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This
article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit
it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of
"frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA
which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review,
no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out
(hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those
who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which
would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a
talk page.
Show me an article so good that it cant be improved.
And reverting can be used to do this if you really want.
Justinc
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l