Since Jimbo has announced the "move to 1.0" some month ago, not much has
happened. Meanwhile, the tone of the press concerning wikipedia seems to
be slowly drifting from "interesting, lots of potential" to "source of
unreliable information". There's the "single printed volume" deal
waiting in the wings, and Mandrake Linux would be interested in a
wikipedia-on-DVD.
Since there seems to be long-standing consensus that wikipedia needs
some form of review (as an additional option, *not* as a replacement for
the wiki way!), I would very much like the discussion about the "how" to
start again, and to reach a clonclusion this time, for a change :-)
It seems to me that most of you would agree to a method similar to this:
* A (logged-in) user can approve a single version of an article.
* At least two approvals are needed for the "wikipedia seal of approval" :-)
Now, the rapid change of wikipedia articles unveils this problem:
* Does the second approval need to be for the *same version* as the
first, or can it be for a later one, which then gets the "seal of approval"?
Also, given the different goals of an approval system, should there be
* one approval only
* one approval for "web version", one for "CD-ROM version", one for
"printed version (single volume)", one for "printed version (30
voulmes)", etc.
Also, should there be
* yes/no approval(s)
* or rather a rating (0-9 or something)
For the record, my opionion to these:
* approvals need *not* to be on the same version, but a "disapproval"
could invalidate any prior approvals
* one approval (we can sort out bot articles/extremely long ones later)
* no rating (either it is a good one or not).
Magnus