You know, maybe I would like this idea more if the way you put it, in the context you put it, didn’t give me the vibe of “feature implementation with an agenda”.
It’s true! I do not deny it.
if the page has been heavily edited by a high number of people, there should be a message telling people to be more confident than average (that is, the average confidence about RW articles) about its reliability. Now imagine a world where this would hold true for the LW article
On one hand, I think in that world I would not come up with this idea. On the other hand, I don’t think in that world the LW page on RW would be such that I would expect to have this agenda.
On a related note: Seriously, people. Someone, somewhere, doesn’t have an all-positive or even mostly-positive idea about us as a group. Which is fine.
I just don’t like that the page looks as if it represents RW consensus while it’s basically edited by one or two people. I don’t know how common this is on RW in general.
It’s true! I do not deny it.
On one hand, I think in that world I would not come up with this idea. On the other hand, I don’t think in that world the LW page on RW would be such that I would expect to have this agenda.
I just don’t like that the page looks as if it represents RW consensus while it’s basically edited by one or two people. I don’t know how common this is on RW in general.
Pretty common. (Also common in the long tail of Wikipedia, I think.) The current version is mostly AD’s recent rewrite attempting to make it calmer.