In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ft2.wiki@gmail.com writes:
If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it traditionally works, but in a number of ways, better.>>
If you allow the paper to be updated, than all the old peer-review, votes, and other attachments have to be blanked out. Do you see that? Let's say the old paper has a trust level of 8.4 out of 10, with three reviewers and 124 votes of "great" or however its going to work. Plus a dozen inbound links citing and worse *quoting* it. Now all of that gets chucked in the trash. All the inbound links no longer reflect anything. It's a mess. And all that review work is also lost.
Will
Hm. I'd assumed that any formal citation would link to a specific history version. That's still the best way. If it isn't going to do so then you'd have to have "edition dated MM-DD-YYYY" on different pages. In any event, you'd archive the various peer reviews and link them from the discussion page or such, so those wouldn't be lost.
Reasons for keeping just one page:
- A formal citation to a WikiJournal should *always* be to a permalink, because inherently the current version may change (thats what a wiki is). So links will always work. - It's always up to date with latest knowledge and can be corrected or improved (subject to peer review). - It allows people to DIFF between versions and easily see what's been changed, which is phenomenally useful - imagine looking at a paper on some topic, and being able to see what's changed between any peer reviewed editions.
FT2
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:44 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ft2.wiki@gmail.com writes:
If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it traditionally works, but in
a
number of ways, better.>>
If you allow the paper to be updated, than all the old peer-review, votes, and other attachments have to be blanked out. Do you see that? Let's say the old paper has a trust level of 8.4 out of 10, with three reviewers and 124 votes of "great" or however its going to work. Plus a dozen inbound links citing and worse *quoting* it. Now all of that gets chucked in the trash. All the inbound links no longer reflect anything. It's a mess. And all that review work is also lost.
Will
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l