I was deliriously happy to read what Mark wrote below, because it gave
me an idea:
the wiki method means that any random POV pusher can
come in and
mangle the article, which has happened on [[Anti-Zionism]] on
numerous occasions. Unless a group of knowledgeable people are
willing to waste their time baby-sitting an article, which usually
amounts to revert-wars (since rarely are the additions even
remotely helpful), the articles go rapidly downhill, wasting the
effort of the people who painstakingly put together a quality
article on a contentious subject.
I'd have to say I agree with that criticism. I've wasted some
time myself on some of these contentious subjects, only to come
back a few months later and find an abysmally horrid article in
its place.
I propose that we agree upon a scheme for marking a particular version
of an article as "the consensus version". And then show this by default
to new users and to search engines like Google.
We should clearly indicate that the consensus version is just a
MILESTONE along the path of article development. We should remind our
readers that any article can be edited any time, and that newer versions
of this article are likely to appear.
Indeed, we could have a colorful flag or icon letting them know
something like, "A more recent version of this article is available" or
"This article has been edited X times since the milestone was set.
Also, we should give every user the option to keep "consensus versions"
as their default, or "latest versions".
I believe that this is in keeping with the Wiki Way -- and that it
supports Jimbo's NPOV policy -- and that it will preserve the value of
hard-won compromise, give and take, and consensus formation. Yet it
poses no handicap to those who want to improve the article.
Magnus and Timwi have created software that can do this, and I'm sure
they would be able to adapt it to work whatever way we need.
Ed Poor
Bureaucrat and Developer Emeritus