[Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

Thu Dec 22 03:51:06 UTC 2005

Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>
>> There are some independent issues there have been mixed up, confusing
>> the discussion:
>
> Indeed, this is the usual pattern when stable versions are discussed. :)
>
>> 1) Using the review process to somehow decide that a certain revision
>> of an article is the good one. That's the stable revision.
>
> No problem here, always nice to add more tools to the toolbox. I've 
> been wanting this sort of development since forever.
>
>> 2) What to present readers. The latest revision? The last stable
>> revision? Some combination of the two?
>
> This is where I'm differing from Magnus. I think the "default" view 
> should be the latest version, not the stable version, because that's 
> the version that we need editors to actually _work_ on.

This is more confusion of issues. The question is about readers, and you 
respond by talking about editors. Granted, there is some overlap, but 
increasingly we need to acknowledge that the two are distinct groups and 
many in the first group will never be in the second.

The default for readers should be a stable version. The default for 
editors should be the latest version, the one that can be, and needs to 
be, edited. The issue is how to guess whether someone is in a particular 
group.

One solution that comes to mind immediately is to use logging in as a 
guide. If someone doesn't log in, they're presumed to be a reader and 
given the stable version, if any, and the development version (suitably 
labeled) if no stable version exists. If someone logs in, they're 
presumed to be an editor and given the development version, with a 
preferences option in case they wish to change this.

To forestall the inevitable complaint, this would not be a step in the 
direction of eliminating "anonymous" edits. In fact, because it provides 
more "reliable" content for most readers, it could and should be 
accompanied by lifting the restrictions on "anonymous" editing.

> Wikipedia is a work in progress, our goal is to _produce_ an 
> encyclopedia rather than merely _displaying_ one.

True enough, but then you say...

> 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.

"Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create *and distribute* a 
free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person 
on the planet in their own language." (emphasis mine)

Our goal is very much to show people an encyclopedia, and trying to 
treat the writing process as if it's wholly separable from this is a 
mistake. If Answers.com, Directmedia, or anyone else wants to help with 
this, that's great, but we have a mission to distribute, and we should 
not abdicate it by saying other people will take care of it. Executing 
core objectives is not something you outsource.

--Michael Snow