On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Grease Monkee wrote:
Bryan Derksen
If stable versions turns out to be a disaster for some reason it should
be perfectly straightforward to just turn it off
again.
from User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles: Any changes to the software
must be gradual and reversible. Great minds think alike :)
Stable versions _is_ reversible. Much more reversible than something
like categories, which were implemented without much thought being given
to their ultimate usage. If categories had been turned off again it
would have left a bajillion useless red [[category:]] links everywhere.
Stable versions doesn't have to do anything visible if the default is
for people to see the most recent version rather than the one marked
stable. Enable it, let people noodle around figuring out the procedures
for what to mark, and if after a while the resulting version marking
looks good maybe then make it the default anon view.
The thing is, if stable versions don't have to do anything visible,
then the developers don't have to implement anything in the first
place. People can just stick a note on the talk page for an article
saying "I declare
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hey_Ya%21&oldid=156732871
version 156732871] to be stable" and other people can say "*I agree"
or "*what are you high?" or whatever.
IMO much better as
a 'test' than page protection and editable subpages, which sounds rather
awkward as far as usability and GFDL compliance go.
I agree with you that that's an awkward hack. And I'm not sure
there's much, if any, benefit. Would Seigenthaler have been less
angry if that article had been at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr./unstable? I
doubt it. But if it was at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&oldiā¦####,
on the other hand, I think it'd be more palatable.
Anthony