[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia: the Journal

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
ft2.wiki at gmail.com writes:


> If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be
> updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's
> paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it traditionally works, but in a
> number of ways, better.>>

If you allow the paper to be updated, than all the old peer-review, votes, 
and other attachments have to be blanked out.  Do you see that?  Let's say 
the old paper has a trust level of 8.4 out of 10, with three reviewers and 
124 votes of "great" or however its going to work.  Plus a dozen inbound links 
citing and worse *quoting* it.  Now all of that gets chucked in the trash.  
All the inbound links no longer reflect anything.  It's a mess.  And all 
that review work is also lost.

Will