Michael Snow wrote:
<snip> The real heart of the problem is that people are laboring under the misapprehension that they're looking at or working on something like a final version of the encyclopedia. So they get themselves in a lather/snit/tizzy (pick your idiom) over a transient state of affairs, or they try to force permanence where consensus for it is lacking. Disputed deletions are in the latter category.
And it's very easy to give people the wrong idea when we don't have a final or even a stable version of anything. Considering that Wikipedia has been going for five years, I think we're ready to start. Stable versions, even more than article ratings, are a feature we need. In fact, I think setting up article ratings before stable versions is completely backwards, because it's the stable versions we should be asking people to rate.
Stable versions that feed into development versions, with the latter clearly identified as such (in David Gerard's words, 1995-style yellow and black "Under Construction" GIFs), would do quite a bit to defuse these problems, I think. In particular, I don't think the urge to delete would be nearly as strong, and the concern about harm to Wikipedia's image from be minimized. The time to provide stable versions has come.
--Michael Snow
Strong agreement here.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])