On Dec 20, 2007 7:26 AM, Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 12:36 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:18:56PM -0800, Grease Monkee wrote:
Wikipedia should be doing what Veropedia is doing. It's not a new idea. I think Mav suggested (like five years ago, or something)
using
the Nupedia domain for exactly that.
Why was it not done? We have talked about stable versions for too
long.
We should be doing it or supporting veropedia doing it.
It got lost in endless talking, as far as I recall.
- d.
Oh come on, David. You know as well as I do that when the "wheels" want something done it gets done, like oversite or checkuser. And when they don't feel like doing doing something they see to it that the community "talks" until the cows come home. You can't blame this on the community engaging in "endless talking", as there is no other initiative that has such widespread consensus. This is a failure of leadership to honor the will of the community, nothing more.
Expanding on this a little more: proposals that reduce transparency and enhance control over individual editors seem to happen with no problema, like checkuser, oversite and the admin irc channel (proposed right here on this list).
But the really important things like stable versions ...
As an aside ... one of the things that companies and governments do to rejuvenate themselves is to create internal forks that compete with eachother in various ways. These can be small and limited in scope but still have a tremendous effect. That's one of the angles that could be designed into Mav's idea.