Removed?

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 15.02.2011 09:24, schrieb Walter Bright:
> Andrew Wiley wrote:
>> No, they have a point. That philosophy doesn't work because at some
>> point, there's too much information. Too much to edit to make sure it
>> meets standards, too much to browse (if the links are bad enough to
>> parody with the Wikipedia game, how bad would they be with unlimited
>> content?). When you open that door, useful content gets drowned in
>> floods of things like useless biographies and advertisements for
>> things no one has heard of.
>> If you take a look at the discussion for the notability requirements,
>> no one really likes them, but no one has really found a better way to
>> define what's notable than to require it to have valid sources.
>> Without those sorts of requirements, Wikipedia becomes chaos.
>
> I agree that pointless clutter can ruin Wikipedia.
>
> One possible solution is to have a 'ranking' of articles, say 1 to 5
> stars. A 5 star article would be notable enough that it would be likely
> to be in a printed encyclopedia. A 1 star would be like a bio page on
> your neighbor.
>
> Wikipedia searching then could be filtered by how many stars you want.
>
> Any mechanical ranking system can be gamed (see the recent stories about
> link farms and Google), so it would have to be moderated.

Yes, something like that would work.
There already are articles that are reviewed and articles that aren't, 
which kind of goes in that direction.
Maybe some guidelines what should be in Wikipedia and what shouldn't 
(advertisements certainly shouldn't) make sense, but the their current 
way is just wrong. "I've never heard of that band *delete*" "There are 
no books about that language *delete*" etc...
(And German Wikipedia is said to be even worse then the English one)