[Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

Wed Dec 21 09:50:46 UTC 2005

>
> 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.
>

There is something that you don't seem to understand. By making the stable
version default to the majority of readers, then Wikipedia's instant
editability becomes compromised. I'll give you an example - say a stable
version has been created for an article about the Romanian economy. Monthly,
stats change, and I'd also like update some prose about the role of ICT in
the Romanian economy. So, as an editor, I go to the editable version and
change it, and - bang - as you said, it's instantly there.

BUT, and this is the big but, my edits would not be instantly displayed on
the default version. People coming into the Romanian economy article would
see the old stable version, and only *if* they choose to see the updated
version, which people won't do for lack of verifiability, would they see the
new data. Now, you're going to say to me - aah, but the stable version can
always be updated. Yes, I concede that, but the proposal states that for a
stable version to be approved, it must go through a lot of consensus
(otherwise, what's the point?).

So, I hope you see that stable versions goes against the very nature of
"instantly-editable" Wikipedia. People will no longer be encouraged to
update stats, to add new, *good* information, if they know that their
information won't be immediately accessible, but will only be featured on
what is in practical purposes a secondary draft 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.

Do you realise that that is still a very significant change, as explained
above?

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.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not trying to make polemic claims. I'm not
trying to insult anyone. It's just a bit annoying that Wikipedia is about to
launch something that will change its nature significantly, and there seems
to be no awareness to it. What's more, everyone is saying "well, the changes
aren't big at all. Why are you worrying?"

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

What perpetually protected pages? Not to insult anyone, but this smells so
much like election propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy says:

A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for:

   - Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main
Page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>from vandalism.
   - Maintaining the integrity of the site's logo.
   - Maintaining the integrity of key copyright and license pages (for
   legal reasons).
   - Maintaining the integrity of press releases.
   - Protecting certain *"system administration"* pages.
   - Protecting the often-used texts in the MediaWiki namespace.
   - User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated
   vandalism.

So, the policy doesn't allow for *articles* to be protected. And, never have
I seen an article protected indefinitely before.

Ronline