[Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

Tue Dec 27 19:46:48 UTC 2005

Magnus Manske wrote:

>Amaurea wrote:
><snip Nupedia comparison>
>
>  
>
>>By marking a version of an article as stable, and presenting that
>>version to normal visitors, we are breaking down the coupling between
>>the number of readers and the number of editors. 
>>
>No. This *might* happen only if the stable version becomes the default
>for anons.
>
Yes, this is part of the hypothetical conditions quoted above.

>>The whole point of a
>>wiki, and the key behind Wikipedia's incredible growth, is that every
>>reader is an editor, and in light of that it isn't a good idea to
>>create seperate views of an article for readers and editors. Any
>>reader reading the stable version instead of the current version will
>>be one less potential editor to improve the current version. 
>>
>>    
>>
>I don't know if you've seen my test page, but just below the title,
>there's a line "This is the stable version. The current working version
>is [[here]]".
>  
>
That doesn't really change much if the stable version is the default. 
Who's going to bother checking out the current working version that 
isn't already a routine Wikipedia contributor? It's hard enough getting 
a lot of visitors to click on the "edit" link when they _do_ see a 
problem in need of fixing, if they have to also click on a link in order 
to see the problem in the first place then I don't see how the situation 
is likely to improve.

>No. Throw a switch in your user settings, and the haunting will go away ;-)
>(Note that this is not implemented yet in my version; neither is showing
>the stable version by default.)
>  
>
That's how we should start the experiment, IMO. Change as little as 
possible with each new step.

>We already *have* created an encyclopedia. Now our focus has to shift
>towards /being/ an encyclopedia. Our ways have to change accordingly.
>  
>
I still disagree with this. We've created an encyclopedia once I can go 
out and buy a copy for my shelves (either on DVD or paper-bound, 
whichever). Wikipedia as it exists today is still very much a work in 
progress despite having a number of quite nice articles. And I think it 
should always _be_ a work in progress. There are plenty of other sites 
that display Wikipedia's content, but only one site that _creates_ 
Wikipedia's content. Don't do anything that hinders that function.