I don't think this would work properly, sinve don't forget this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and it is supposed to have the same content from everyone; otherwise it would get pretty messed up. And when you say that only selected articles would appear, you're saying there would be some articles one would be unable to read?
-- Alvaro On 11-01-2009, at 15:34, "Ian Woollard" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/01/2009, White Cat <[email protected]> wrote: >> Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/ >> delete - take >> your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk >> can always >> be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the >> definition of junk >> has been rock solid all along. > > I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself: > >> A problem has emerged when people decided to >> expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of >> articles >> without securing a consensus for it. > > In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours, > presumably because their value system varies. > >> An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a >> consensus. >> If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia >> they >> would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking >> action. > > Thinking laterally, just an idea: > > Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for > postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider > certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny > postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to > see them). > > In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't > do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism > stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be > possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she > values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own > set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for > anonymous users.) > > Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable > for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor > quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before > becoming full-fledged articles. > > I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be > better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far > less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes. > >> -- White Cat > > -- > -Ian Woollard > > We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly > imperfect world would be much better. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
