-----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