Further specialization in process may help, but thats
only part of it. Some would say its just more "process
creep", and I tend to think the truth somewhere in the
middle between process upgrades and guidance upgrades.
IAC I think I need to apologise for my earlier
comment, "please forgive us..." which was indeed a bit
snippy (though quite edited down from what I had in
the draft :|). Our traditional proper response to
anyone has traditionally been "{{sofixit}}" and it
should remain so, regardless of who makes the
criticism. There are in fact only two--exactly
two--kinds of people in this world: Those who edit
Wikipedia and those who dont.
And furthermore, I think ATP focusing on particular
articles ("the pick on a crappy article game" -
Flcello) at this point is rather useless, when there
are indeed bigger fish to fry --considering my opening
point, namely that stuff needs' be done.
Sincerely,
SV
--- Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's the list I was thinking of. The cleanup
process is currently so
bogged down that it's hard to know what needs to be
done, though. In
the meantime, I've created a template --
{{cleanup-priority}}, which
currently is a cleanup tag for any articles which
are of sub-par
quality on that list (and should only be limited to
that list, I
think), hopefully it will help focus things a bit.
(If people disagree
with the "prioritization", well, they can argue that
on the list
itself -- if we have such a list, and take it at
least partially
seriously, then I think using it as a base for a
prioritization scheme
is a good idea).
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com