[Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

Thu Dec 22 02:50:03 UTC 2005

Magnus Manske wrote:

>I actually haven't implemented the "view stable as default" mechanism
>yet, and there's no technical need for that. Currently, there's only a
>header describing what kind of version you see right now, and if there's
>an alternative. I won't mind if it stays that way.
>  
>
Nor I. A "view most recent stable version" link would be handy to let 
people easily jump there, but not really vital.

>>But our goal isn't to _show_ an encyclopedia to people, it's to get
>>people to help us _write_ one. Let Answers.com worry about showing our
>>material to people.
>>    
>>
>Funny.
>en.wikipedia.org says in its logo "Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia".
>So when normal people (not wikipedians;-) come to that page, what do you
>think they expect to see? It's not "Wikipedia, the wiki that develops
>texts for the encyclopedia you can see at Answers.com".
>  
>
If people have a misperception about Wikipedia, I think we should try to 
change that misperception rather than redefining the project to fit it.

>The status and the *perception* of wikipedia has changed since 2001.
>We're not trying to build an encyclopedia anymore. We /have become/ one.
>  
>
We are in possession of many of the raw materials for one, but we are 
still a work in progress. It says so on [[Wikipedia:About]], which I 
find more useful as a reference than the tagline on a logo. If we're not 
trying to build an encyclopedia any more should we remove the edit links 
entirely? I know you're not really proposing that, but only due to 
assuming good faith - taking your statement solely at face value implies 
to me that you think Wikipedia's "done."

It can't be "done." What would I do for the rest of the century? I've 
already made room in my schedule.

>In 2001, we were not really used as a source of knowledge. That /might/
>have started 2002, or later. Today, we are one of the largest
>repositories of knowledge. We can now either
>1. teach every single one of our potential users in the ways of wikis
>and how to use them, look through the page history, and still treat
>everything they read with utmost caution, /or/
>2. present a random user a good encyclopedia, with the option for more
>(current versions, editing, the like)
>
>I'd prefer #1, but, well... :-)
>
I call logical fallacy, this is clearly a false dichotomy. Why must 
option 1 demand perfection in order to be acceptable, with option two 
being the only possible alternative if perfection cannot be achieved?

I say we go with option 3: "do what's best for developing Wikipedia's 
content by trying to get more people involved in editing even if this is 
not ideal for people who come to Wikipedia solely to read it, because 
our most important target audience is not those who come here to read 
our material but those who want to _reuse_ it." That's the whole point 
of doing this under the GFDL, after all.