Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right.
As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote: > David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its > > polished writing. > > Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy > > - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. > > I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy when something > Ive written stands the test of time. But there are times when it seems > that open editing model itself was nothing more a bad idea. I guess > this idea reflects a bit of that pessimism. :-) > > The 'decay into mush' point is well made. Its difficult sometimes for > one to justify to oneself the effort required to overcome mush-ism - > particularly when its an adversarial system (WP:BRD). Its the > adversarial systems which seem to be paradoxically constructive and > destructive at the same time. > > -SC > > _______________________________________________ > 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
