On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I won't comment on the financial aspect of this, but I don't know if there will be some sort of "stability" feature that will gain popularity - many feel it's "unwiki" and goes against our principles. I just think it's a poor idea in general.
The unwikiness is the strongest objection.
I don't think it's unavoidable, either. Part of the draw of Wikipedia is that it's nearly always a live draft, and "stability" will only hurt that portion of it.
Unfortunately, we're a top-10 website now, and most of the problems that come with that are in fact from being a live working draft.
How about a wikipedia.com with stable versions and ads, to pay for educational programs for people who aren't comfortable and well-fed first-world citizens? That'd be fun. (As far as I can tell, the staunchest objectors to ads are comfortable and well-fed first-world citizens.)
- d.