I want to make a serious proposal about the handling of problem pages. As we all know, there are some pages which appear to be destined to be battlegrounds forever. Many of the Middle-Eastern pages are in this category. Contrary to what we would like, such pages do NOT eventually settle into an acceptable state. What actually happens is that the current set of contestants get tired then the article remains dormant (often in a fairly appalling state) for a while until a new set of contestants come along and start the war up again. In this process, excellent portions of the article inevitably become lost or distorted and there is nearly always some arrant nonsense present. The article does NOT steadily get better over time but just oscillates between several degrees of poverty.
What I'm saying is that our current model DOES NOT WORK AND WILL NEVER WORK for some types of pages. Therefore, we have to change the model.
I propose that for particularly problematic topics there are two versions. One is the "official version" which is write-protected. The official version is what readers get when they click on links. The other is the "draft version", which can be editted. Then there is some standard procedure (a committee?) by which the draft version can be copied to the official version.
This is better than the present system of page protection because it does not freeze page development. It allows additions and variations to be tried out and fought over off-line, then draft editions achieving some amount of consensus can be made official. The average quality of the article as seen by outsiders would be greatly improved.
Anyway, please consider it or improve on it.
Zero.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Hi Zero, welcome to the list.
I agree entirely with Zero's assessment of these hot-spots, few in number but eternally contentious. Aside from content issues, many of these articles are simply BAD PROSE; they bear the scars of too many edit-wars.
My only reservation is one of strictly practical grounds; since the wikipedia software, like everything else here, is written by volunteers, we probably shouldn't depend on substantial changes to the underlying software, which such a scheme, at first glance, suggests. Our best bet -- at least in the short-term -- would be to try to develop organizational strategies *within* the existing system. For example, leaving the main article read-only and shifting ALL editorial development to the corresponding Talk page and having only a committee or certain designated users update the "official" version as needed.
Technically speaking, this would require no changes; perhaps just a message at the top of the page. However, I can already hear the complaints: it would be counter-intuitive, managerial, "cabal-forming", and -- above all -- counter the wiki spirit of "you can edit this page right now!". But perhaps Zero is right: perhaps the original wiki conception doesn't work for every page in the encyclopedia.
V.
On Monday 12 January 2004 13:04, zero 0000 wrote:
I propose that for particularly problematic topics there are two versions. One is the "official version" which is write-protected. The official version is what readers get when they click on links. The other is the "draft version", which can be editted. Then there is some standard procedure (a committee?) by which the draft version can be copied to the official version.
I don't think that it should be done because I think that it could not be ensured that the committees assembled for that purpose will be neutral.
On Jan 12, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Monday 12 January 2004 13:04, zero 0000 wrote:
I propose that for particularly problematic topics there are two versions. One is the "official version" which is write-protected. The official version is what readers get when they click on links. The other is the "draft version", which can be editted. Then there is some standard procedure (a committee?) by which the draft version can be copied to the official version.
I don't think that it should be done because I think that it could not be ensured that the committees assembled for that purpose will be neutral.
Er, then who *would* be neutral? Someone has to be, or we'll never get anywhere...
Peter
--- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show