[Wikipedia-l] Re: Waiting for 1.0

Fri Jul 16 20:26:33 UTC 2004

Hi Magnus

See also a discussion about that : 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation

I would be very happy to see this topic being in discussion again ;-)

Magnus Manske wrote:
> 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