On 2 October 2011 12:28, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Ian Woollard <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1 October 2011 18:15, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The assumption "Presumably anything that still remains is of >>> sufficient quality for whatever level the article is" has so much >>> wrong with it that I don't know where to start. >> >> No, if material lasts for a long period in an article it's highly likely to >> be fairly good even if it gets rewritten later; and the more material and >> the longer it lasts, the better. > > Material lasts a long time for two reasons: > > (a) It is good and lots of people have checked it and left it alone; > (b) It is bad/wrong and no-one has spotted it yet and replaced it or > rewritten it. > > I don't see how you can devise a metric to distinguish these two case, > as you would have to detect the number of people silently checking and > approving something (not just reading it). Lots of quality control is > *silent* and not detectable in the current metrics. It would be > different if there were a way for people to mark text and say "I have > this book and have checked this citation, or followed the URL and > agree with what is written here". Essentially a way to detect the > silent verification that often takes place.
You mean, like, umm, Flagged Revisions? J. -- James D. Forrester [email protected] | [email protected] [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
