[WikiEN-l] Re: The heart of the deletion problem

Mon Dec 12 19:19:03 UTC 2005

On 12/12/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
> > And it's very easy to give people the wrong idea when we don't have a
> > final or even a stable version of anything. Considering that Wikipedia
> > has been going for five years, I think we're ready to start. Stable
> > versions, even more than article ratings, are a feature we need. In
> > fact, I think setting up article ratings before stable versions is
> > completely backwards, because it's the stable versions we should be
> > asking people to rate.
>
> I generally agree with your comments, although this one strikes me as
> backwards.  I see ratings as a way of determining whether an article is
> in fact stable.  If an article must first be judged stable what would be
> the mechanism for making that decision?
>
You seem to be confusing "good" and "stable".  It's easy to see if an
article is in fact stable.  Just look at when the last time is that
it's been edited.  I suppose you could get even more detailed, and
look at the types of edits that have been performed (minor fixes
indicated stability or major changes and new content indicated lack of
stability), but even that isn't what ratings are about.  Ratings are
about whether or not a version is good, not whether or not it's
stable.

And in order for ratings to be useful, you have to have a lot of
ratings on the same version.  That's why you need stability before
ratings can be effective.

> The lack of an agreed mechanism for doing that has been a major factor
> in not getting the 1.0 project off the ground.
>
> Ec

I agree.  That's why I haven't really opposed adding ratings in. 
Agreeing on something is better than nothing here.  Worst case
scenario ratings come out and everyone realizes why they weren't such
a good idea, and then new ideas can come forward.

Anthony