At 23:08 +0100 27/8/06, David Gerard wrote:
On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>
wrote:
http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-610849…
A related source.... not the BBC.
"We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to
show
vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty
much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live
version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it
was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current
structure of Mediawiki.
I think that point Bill Thompson is make is not technical. It is that
a wiki is open, and by allowing two classes of user in the way you
describe, that it stops being open. The GFDL licence allows changes,
but this model allows changes, but only by the upper class of users.
Are we heading backwards to Nupedia?
>Nupedia was a public peer-reviewed general
>encyclopedia created by volunteer scholars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a
better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working
draft.
- d.
David, I disagree. If you close the system down and away from open
edits, then somebody will take a copy of the English Wikipedia, open
the system to edits, and issue a press release. What happens next?
History repeating?
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///