Removed?

[spir]

On 02/15/2011 09:43 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> 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.

There is an "assessment" system that has started to be used for a while 
already. With artcles ranked at various levels of quality (indeed probably 
discussable, but people want that); qialified by name instead of stars as 
Walter suggested.
But a majority of articles are still unassessed yet.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com