Andrew Lih wrote:
> First off, kudos to Erik as most of the ten are quite well written and
> help to enlighten.
>
> On 3/11/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and
>> > explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in
>> > Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it
>> > can be undone etc.
>>
>> I have made this point in exactly this way many times in person and
>> observed the enlightenment on people's faces. Perhaps it is something
>> that works better from face-to-face, but nevertheless, I'd be cautious
>> not to rely only on "insider opinion" as to whether this line of
>> argument "clicks" or not.
>
> I'd have to agree with the chorus here that #4 is likely too confusing
> because it's too technocratic. Read it again:
>
> "What you can do is make a copy of an article, and implicitly
> choose this copy to be the one shown to all readers by default. No
> existing copy is ever touched again, which allows us to backtrack as
> needed and to revert unwanted changes. It also allows you to refer to
> Wikipedia articles using something called a "permalink" in the bottom
> left corner -- a link to a copy of the article that will never change,
> for better or for worse."
>
> You're starting to talk about how a database works. Once you start
> talking database details to the layperson, you've lost 90% of your
> audience and, hence, the point.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what "the point" the reader should walk away with.
> Is it "Everything is preserved" or "Nothing is ever lost"? If so,
> change the point to be that.
"Changing Wikipedia does not rewrite history."
--Michael Snow