Personally, all I really want out of a sifter-type
process is "this has
been checked and is not blatantly vandalized or currently an active
battleground, and the spelling looks okay to me." IMO a sifter like this
would take a lot of stress off of editors who, rightly or wrongly, feel
But we already have that! We have the NPOV warning, the Cleanup
warning and two dozen more tags editors slap onto articles. It is only
in a few areas that Wikipedia suffers - the articles about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is particularily atrocious. But compare
those articles against articles on the same subject in Britannica and
you'll see that Wikipedia isn't any worse than it. Wikipedia is good
enough as it is IMHO.
--
mvh Björn