[Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

Thu Dec 29 01:48:01 UTC 2005

Magnus Manske wrote:

>As I said before, the question is if we are primarily a wiki (show
>work-in-progress first, with link to stable version) or an encyclopedia
>(show the stable version first, and link to the work-in-progress).
>  
>
But this is _also_ a false dichotomy. I say we're option number three: a 
project to _write_ a free encyclopedia that happens to have hit upon a 
wiki as a the best means to that end that we've come up with so far.

I'm not fanatically dedicated to the "wiki way", I don't think it's some 
sort of prime ideal we should hold before all else. We could use some 
other means to write a free encyclopedia instead, perhaps by winning a 
giant lottery and buying the copyrights to existing encyclopedias to 
relicence under the GFDL. But the key point is that our goal is 
_writing_ an encyclopedia rather than just displaying the best version 
we've managed to come up with so far. If you were proposing something 
that departed from "wikiness" but that I thought would help the writing 
process I'd be all over it with sloppy kisses.

>You can buy the German wikipedia on DVD. €9,90 including a softcover
>book about Wikipedia. This is the third release of this DVD, by the way.
>  
>
I'm very happy for them. I work exclusively on the English encyclopedia, 
however, so my point still stands. Furthermore, I point out that (from 
what I've heard) they used an approach making a "publishable" copy that 
didn't change the ongoing functioning of de.wikipedia in any way - they 
forked a copy and then culled out the usable stuff from it in private. A 
stable version tag would help this approach immensely without in any way 
needing to be the default view on the "working" copy.

In any event, as soon as we've got Wikipedia 1.0 I'm going to throw a 
brief private party and then get right to work on upgrading it to 
Wikipedia 2.0. I go where the work is being done.