On 07/09/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Trying to think laterally for the moment. If articles
were rated on a scale
of 1 to 100 for excellence, the lower rungs of the ladder would correspond
to poor articles, of various types: stubby, badly written, failing when
judged by policy (NPOV, NOR, CYS), non-encyclopedic. This could be the
basis of an automated clean-up/deletion mechanism also, but would need
perhaps one other ingredient (to make a kind of 2-d plot). What should that
be?
Quality of form vs. quality of content?
The one is ranging from an unwikified orphan stub to a polished,
linked, well-referenced 5,000 word article article; the other deals
with comprehensiveness, NPOV, accuracy, &c.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk