[Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

Tue Dec 20 20:35:28 UTC 2005

Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was quite surprised to see today in the Wikipedia Signpost that
>the semi-protection policy had passed and I hadn't even heard
>a poll was conducted on it.
>
>I think it's really important that everyone is notified in a much more
>organised manner about such important policy chances.
>
>Now, the reason I'm writing here is because of the looming "stable
>versions" policy. I think this is a policy that contravenes the principles
>of Wikipedia, and I've raised this on the talk page
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions)
>It would be great if other people could comment on this policy.
>
>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.
>
>About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous
>users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then
>that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However,
>let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new
>policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension
>the success, of Wikipedia.
>
>At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal
>policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't
>been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring
>errors, etc.
>
>Let's maintain Wikipedia's liberty!
>
One is often hard pressed to know what policy really is.  Often it is 
nothing more than a few policy wonks agreeing to something on a page 
somewhere.  As long as they attach the word "policy" and nobody objects 
they draw the conclusion that there is general approval.  If you weren't 
aware that this was happening, too bad. 

People obsessed with policy often tend to be very shortsighted, or they 
will draft policies to deal with obvious problems but without 
considering the effect of those policies on people who were never part 
of the problem.  In other words policies designed to cope with a small 
minority are at the expense of the great majority.

Preventing anonymous users from writing new articles may have been fine 
as a short term solution, but we need to find better ways for long term 
solutions.  There are too many ways around that short term solutions 
anyway.  We do need to have versions of an article declared stable and 
documented, but not at the expense of preventing the wiki's natural growth.

Ec