On 9/19/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:

Peter Blaise responds:

   Stable?  I think stability is the antithesis and death knell of

any knowledge system, especially one that is community-based. How about "accurate"?

However, I can imagine an "article" with more than one "main

page", perhaps a series of dated pages or other reasons for more than one, non-exclusive page on an article topic - that might be interesting.

   For instance, I own and constantly refer to old dictionaries and

encyclopedias. I have many versions of the Focal Press Encyclopedia of Photography from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, up to 2007. I see a vast difference through every 10 years when I compare each revision side by side. Of course, the recent edition is about digital photography, but that does not mean I toss the earlier chemical-based photography encyclopedia - I want that always available, also. The old versions are as close to being "stable" as I have, but which version? I have dozens! However, even the most abandoned photography practices are revisited today with new ways to explore the old styles of the chemical darkroom, so even the ancient texts are getting updates. Perhaps having multiple wiki pages by date or other demarcation makes sense, which would be sort of like the disambiguation pages - "for *photographic development* see *chemical* here, see *digital* here".

   So, what is the purpose of "stability"?  Are we really meaning

"mature"? Even that must be updated as people and science and knowledge matures - a never-ending process. Now, we have "This page was last modified 14:51, 19 September 2007" so we can already can see how old a page is. Does age really matter - is an article better or worse if it's last edits were a long time ago? What concept are we looking for that we think we lack? As quoted: Quality assurance, Filtering, Labeling ... and as identified by at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007 (sorely in need of editing for accurate grammar translation) Sustainability Reliability Outreach Recognition

   I see no stability "problem".  That is, I do not see implied

instability as a source of conflict with any of the goals above. As said in my opening, to the contrary, I believe that stability should never be a goal. Stability is at worst is an observed happenstance, and at best a change to revisit, explore, and improve.

   However, believing in change even for change's sake (how else

would we ever learn *some* new things), I'm all for revisiting and exploring the idea of stability, even if it "merely" confirms for us that it is an unworkable ideal or goal. Some day, the next wave of editors can revisit the idea of stability once again when they forget what we have learned. Then the next wave of editors beyond them, and so on.

   Wikis are more than just "quick to get started" building a

massive amount of pages. Because they are also always "quick to edit" immediately, every day, with each newcomer's thoughts, wikis are proving to be living, growing things. Grow or die. Wiki begets growth. Stability equals death.

   I imagine that an article may "languish" unedited for many

reasons without being stable, mature, or accurate, including: - lack of interest - lack of information - lack of publicity - contention - fear, such as a minority viewpoint being withheld versus the dominance of a majority ("the earth is round" had to overcome a pre-existing *stable* viewpoint, for example) ... I'm sure each of us has insight to expand this list of reasons for stability due to lacks of something.

   However, I think a template or extension to MediaWiki software

that allows visitors to rate the page on a range of criteria, with new criteria dynamically available - now THAT'S a great idea! Something like:

Others think this page is: 1.....................5...................10 Needs work.....fine.....outstanding Inaccurate Incomplete

What do YOU think? 1-10 [__] [ Submit ] Comment on the discussion/talk page.

   ... and just leave user reviews at the bottom of ANY page via

template or extension. Later, analysts can bot around looking to enhance pages that have received poor reviews, asses the overall scoring of new versus old pages, new versus old users, and so on. You know, as carpenters say, measure twice before cutting once. Maybe, pages generally go through a swinging pendulum from incomplete to fine to inaccurate to fine to needs work to fine to needs work to fine to outstanding, then back and forth between fine and outstanding the rest of it's life. Maybe what one person would consider "stable" takes an average of two years to mature, but never really is "over" or penultimately accurate? Maybe ...

   ... and so on.  Any thoughts?

• Peter Blaise

PS - At wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_an_account_on_the_Foundation_ wiki I read "... [wikimedia.org wiki] is not a discussion place. Only a result of discussions on the other places are published..." and at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/About_this_site I read "MediaWiki.org is not Wikipedia".

meaning that you shouldn't contribute encyclopedia articles or use Wikipedia policies there. It's for the software, not an encyclopedia.

THAT is the problem - we all don't believe in our own

product or our own producers or our own customers enough to trust them and include them with equivalent consideration at all levels! We might say, "How preposterous, to let anyone contribute to foundation

Why would we let them? It's the corporate website. Do you have let anyone have write access to your corporate website?

or

software projects!"

MediaWiki.org is an openly editable site.

=8^o But then, we once said, "How preposterous to

let anyone contribute to an encyclopedia." ;-) Same, same.

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l