[Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

Wed Dec 28 12:38:24 UTC 2005

Hi Magnus,
> >Regarding vandalism and bad pages, the wiki answer to these is that we
> >have lots of people to fix those problems for the same reason the
> >poblems are there. There will be more vandalism the bigger Wikipedia
> >grows, but so will the number of people who can spot and fix that
> >vandalism, for the same reason.
>
> The real problem isn't outright vandalism. The problem is the
> Steigentaler incident type. Wrong information, inserted by accident or
> by purpose. A stable version can prevent this. The current system has
> shown it can't, not in all cases.
The precise way to put it would be 
"A stable version **can** prevent this." It will not not neccessarily  do so 
in all cases, but in some it might. My prediction is:
* just like the recent changes patrol catches some mistakes, the new "stable 
versions feature" will find some more mistakes, **but** others will remain. 
And then some other "Steigentaler incident" will take place and people will 
complain again. There are some people for whom you will never get it right. 
In north Germany we have a Low Saxon proverb: "Do wat du wullt, de Lüüd 
snackt doch". (In English: Whatever you do, people will complain.)

The problem I see with the stable version policy is that it is presented as a 
one-size-fits-all remedy. If you want to introduce stable versions for all 
articles you will get a resource problem. Suddenly there have to be stable 
versions and people will get lazy with their checks. 

The problem I see is a very big one. Once some error slips through the checks, 
the problem for Wikipedia will be an even bigger one. We present a version as 
stable and nevertheless it was wrong. Now imagine Steigentaler having the 
passages he did not like in a *stable* version.

In summary: I do not think that stable versions is a wise decision.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann