On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM, FT2<[email protected]> wrote: <snip>
> The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the text, > or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check > isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July > 2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many would > click the link. Same applies to references to books. Those only get checked thoroughly when the article reaches featured article candidacy status. And I shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5 people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as "verified". You could then check the rest, plus spot that some vandal who managed to get the "permissions level" had wrongly marked a bogus reference as "verified". Trouble is, that sort of system (kind of a "flagged revisions" for references) would be rather complicated. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
