El C wrote:
I want to make another point, about Wikipedia as an
'immediately
reliable' and 'scholarly' resource, a point that I think the Print
Encyclopedia critiques are consistently neglecting and, perhaps, even
misrepresenting (this might even strike a few editors here as
peculiar, but I do think it makes a lot of sense). Example:
Let say, upon reading the article [[Snuh?]], which I find articulates
this or that well and is well-referenced, I wish to cite a passage
from it on a Peer Review publication; but let's also consider that
[[Snuh?]] is a contencious topic which, for much of the time,
undergoes POV wars/vandalism which, at times, dramatically alter its
'reliable' from, including perhaps the specific passage I intend to
cite.
I am, however, not under any obligation to merely have [[Snuh?]] per
se. in a footnote, rather, I can easily use [[Snuh? -- that specific
revision]]. That, then, easily solves the problem of 'immediate
reliability and stability.'
Yep. Please have a glance over [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0]] and
[[Wikipedia:Baseline revision]] .
I understand the next version of MediaWiki will include a constant
revision ID for the *current* version of an article as well as past
versions, so you won't need to do an add-a-space edit to generate
a version number.
- d.