-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BJörn Lindqvist schrieb:
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.
Wikipedia is good, no doubt about that :-)
The (main) difference between a "sifter" function and warning templates
is that with the template system, the *absence* of a template means either
* this is OK
or
* noone saw this, or cared enough to put a warning tag there
A "sifter" (or as I call it, "validation") function allows to
actively
mark a revision as "good" or "bad". Warning templates can only mark
it
as "bad".
Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCdOPkCZKBJbEFcz0RAn0FAKCATtSjiYuN04bjRA4iLEMKt7MnIgCfbMqd
yXVN3JdSiSEFJmzhvYiSgrI=
=ptw+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----