Well, the combination of
* the number of watchers and
* the time passed since the last edit
could give an indication that the article is more reliable than the
average wikipedia article. An article that is watched by 2 people as
wasn't edited for a week should be OK, as well as one watched by 10
people with the last edit 2 days ago. Also, the ratio of total number of
edits per "article existence" could give a clue - an article that has
been edited a lot is more likely to have evolved to something reliable.
Articles deemed "reliable" by such a system could display an icon, like
a greenlight or something. Of course, I'm aware that it would miss many
reliable articles, and deem some crappy ones reliable. A manual approval
system would be a lot better in results, but more work.
Magnus
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
The info you are requesting will buy you nothing. Even
if you know the
article was accessed by a watcher after the last edit you cannot be
sure he read it and corrected errors. database wise it should be
simple to implement and since only some numbers are involved, the
operation should eat that much resources if properly done.