Message: 10
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:44:46 -0400
From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
Daniel Mayer wrote:
What? How do you come to that conclusion? There
*will* be no fork at
*all* -
the only thing that will be done is selecting one version of an
article that is
approved in some way. Any future approved version would be based on
the
development version (that is, a regular Wikipedia article which would
be in
perpetual development), not the last stable version.
I can imagine at least one scenario that would lead to a bit of a fork,
although whether it's a bad thing is not clear:
Imagine that we have experts of some sort working on an article. They
hash out between them and the others editing an article something
reasonably neutral, and it becomes the "stable" version. A few months
later, they come back, and the article has been editing by 500 people
in
the meantime and become mostly a mess. They decide to take a few of
the
good facts and improvements from the new version and "backport" them to
the previous stable version rather than dealing with the mess of the
development version, because frankly the last stable version was better
(except for the few facts that were duly incorporated). That'd be a
fork of sorts, I suppose.
Of course, something similar happens on occasion already, which has
been
the subject of some revert wars...
-Mark
> The review club would not edit. No editing would
take place on the
> stable branch. The job of the review club would only be to determine
> whether "wiki" versions can be promoted to "stable". If an
article
> needs editing, the review club would say so on the talk page. Review
> club members could edit ''in their other role of being regular
> contributors'', but these edits would be treated ''the same as any
> other contributor's edits''.