[Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

Wed Dec 21 15:08:12 UTC 2005

On 12/21/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
> 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

And you don't seem to realize how adversarial and prejudicial the idea of
stable versions is -
"Oh, we have an up to date version, but we don't dare show it as the default
displayed article
 because our up to date articles are apparently so crappy that they need to
be specially cleared
by our editors."
Not to mention the simple effect of making the current revision even harder
to find- the more work
a reader has to do to get to something, the less they will read it!
For an example: the New York times
is only, I would estimate, about half again as hard to read as USA Today
(for an equivalent amount of text);
yet the NY Times has 1,136,433 (
http://www.nytco.com/investors-nyt-circulation.html) readers, as opposed  to

more than 2.25 million readers for USA Today. One is easier, and the other
is not.

~Maru