[Wikipedia-l] road to stability, formatted. last kick-off posting.

Tue Dec 6 20:20:56 UTC 2005

>
>IMHO the opposite needs to be true; reviewed, stable versions need to be right
>on top, as what the public sees by default.
>
>Sure, there'll be a big fat message showing that 78573 more edits have been made
>to [[George W. Bush]] since this reviewed version, with a handy link to go right
>to it and see the changes, but they're gonna see the stable copy first.
>
>We've spent so much time hyping Wikipedia that it's become quite popular at its
>present location; a separate or hidden click-through stable set will basically
>never be seen and can't reasonably answer the (totally valid) criticisms that a
>reference site needs to be a little bit conservative on its public face.
>
>By all means, we should let the vandalism and the JOSH IS GAY and the GWB penis
>pictures and the occasional bit of alleged libel -- and the genuine building up
>and back-and-forth of new material development -- happen one level removed from
>the millions-of-hits-per-day.
>
>Most of those visitors *aren't* participating editors, and on a relatively
>mature site like en.wikipedia we need to recognize this and act accordingly to
>meet their requirements as well as those of visitors who start participating.
>Will it be a speed bump? Yes, it will. But with an industrial firehose-sized
>stream of visitors, a speed bump is NOT A BAD THING.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>  
>
I agree on this. And hope it will get done.

Waerth/Walter