This is something I'd like to have on Wikipedia, but why not start here. It can be a problem that when viewing articles here, a really good article has the same status as one that is unsourced, or contains fanon & biases. (I know there are tags for this, but they certainly aren't on every post that needs them, and things can change rapidly around here. The speed of change can be a problem -- it seems that sometimes quality standards cannot keep up with informational changes.
What I would propose would be a "stable" pages system. If a page is factually complete, properly styled and formatted, and properly sourced, it could be cached off to a special section where we only hold the pages that meet this standard. Anyone looking here can be assured that according to the beliefs of this community, these pages conform to the highest encyclopaedic standards.
Keep most things in the "unstable/experimental" state, and only move up the ones that are ready to go, as they become ready to go. It needn't be a rush.
Using the "stable" wookieepedia, you may not get the most up-to-date content, but you can be assured that everything in there is accurate and sourced.
I'm thinking of this the way they do OSS software distributions.Serendipitousus 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- No. Our effort is better spent making the vast improvements we need than trying to decide what is not in need of improvement. Havac 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia does that for publishing reasons. We aren't doing that here. -Fnlayson 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to it, but like Finlayson said, that was done for their published version. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)