[Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

Wed Dec 21 08:50:19 UTC 2005

Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

>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.
>  
>
I think you have misunderstood the concept of stable versions entirely.

Currently, new versions of an article can be added through editing an
existing version of it. This *does not* change the existing version, it
merely produces a new one, which is shown as default when you request a
page for reading without specifying the version number. Noone can, and
noone ever could, edit any *version* of an article. Just *the* article,
by creating a new version. That point seems to have escaped your attention.

A stable version merely changes the *default view* from the latest
version to another that has been declared stable by someone trustworthy.
You can still see the latest version if you want, and you can still
create new ones based on any old version.

So, the only thing that will changes is that for anons (and logged-in
users depending on their settings) reading articles, the *initial* view
will be the stable version. This features a text like "this is a stable
version, the latest version is [[here]]" in the header.

So, despite your rather polemic claims, there is *no* (as in *0*,
*zero*, *nada*) freedom taken away from anyone. Everyone can still edit
every article.

On the contrary, setting a stable version will again allow the editing
of perpetually protected pages! So, more freedom to anyone.

I don't think I can explain this any clearer without reverting to drawn
images, so if you don't get it now, I can't help you ;-)

Magnus