El C wrote:
I want to make another point, about Wikipedia as an 'immediately reliable' and 'scholarly' resource, a point that I think the Print Encyclopedia critiques are consistently neglecting and, perhaps, even misrepresenting (this might even strike a few editors here as peculiar, but I do think it makes a lot of sense). Example: Let say, upon reading the article [[Snuh?]], which I find articulates this or that well and is well-referenced, I wish to cite a passage from it on a Peer Review publication; but let's also consider that [[Snuh?]] is a contencious topic which, for much of the time, undergoes POV wars/vandalism which, at times, dramatically alter its 'reliable' from, including perhaps the specific passage I intend to cite. I am, however, not under any obligation to merely have [[Snuh?]] per se. in a footnote, rather, I can easily use [[Snuh? -- that specific revision]]. That, then, easily solves the problem of 'immediate reliability and stability.'
Yep. Please have a glance over [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0]] and [[Wikipedia:Baseline revision]] .
I understand the next version of MediaWiki will include a constant revision ID for the *current* version of an article as well as past versions, so you won't need to do an add-a-space edit to generate a version number.
- d.