On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler wrote:
> > Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain
> > Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked
> as
> > they degrade. It happens, all right.
> Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
> an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
> in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has
> already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to
> editing.
>
>
I do think that kind of degradation happens over time, and not just because
a FA made the front-page. So, I would favor locking a FA on the front page
for 24 hours, FWIW. So that's my position on dealing with FAs... just lock
'em for awhile.
Obviously I agree that standards have risen over time --
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler wrote:
> Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain
> Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as
> they degrade. It happens, all right.
Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us rais
William Beutler wrote:
> I don't see it
> as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for
> instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should
> take some consideration to change them.
Remember that film "Six degrees.." There was an anecdote about the
Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain
Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as
they degrade. It happens, all right.
As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there
should be a hold placed on articles that hav
David Gerard wrote:
> People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its
> polished writing.
> Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy
> - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful.
I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo wrote:
> Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
> an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
> in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has
> already been achieved or nearly achieved,
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo wrote:
> Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
> an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
> in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has
> already been achieved or nearly achieved,
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has
already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to
editing.
-SC
10 matches
Mail list logo
