[Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

Tue Dec 20 13:03:44 UTC 2005

On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
>
> >
> >Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
> >The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
> >reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
> >Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
> >a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
> >
> >
> And with stable versions, that would change how?
> (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
>
> Magnus

Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable
versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going
against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted,
which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it
would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the
principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits
would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy,
there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version
would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would
become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the
editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored
version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an
article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits
to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become
incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal,
takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature
becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a
peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.

I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are
only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from
banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions,
are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to
combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes
first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.

Ronline