Plus, a domain like “revolution.com” is just kind of intrinsically galling.
A proposal for offering the public validity metrics on the Wikipedia — which needs some clarification, but is an interesting idea. Evaluation is such a subjective process, that the thought of systemizing it brings up theoretical issues akin to sense-making — how and under what circumstances do people get value out of information? This assumes, in other words, some measure of objective truth/value/”goodness” for any particular article (or rather, category, since the individual article level is way too fine-grained at the moment). Furthermore, the details make my head hurt. Wouldn’t this require some measure of editorial review that a) would have to be agreed apon, and b) would have to somehow be maintained over time?
On the other hand, doing something to translate the implicit knowledge of the Wikipedia community on who is a valued contributor, what subjects have been worked on over time, and so on, into an easily digestible format for the public to aid in quick & dirty evaluation of pages, is maybe not such a bad idea. Whether it would be paid attention to, is another question; trying to encourage information literacy skills online is an uphill battle. It’s an interesting question of whether people verify the information they find on wp; what’s a more interesting question is whether they should have to, and whether they verify any other sources (dubious or no). Rarely, methinks.
My thoughts are with the Gulf Coast. Read about the craig’s list response: http://www.cnewmark.com/archives/000447.html