Earlier: "...We have talked about stable versions for too long. We should be doing it..."
Peter Blaise responds: "Stable versions" of any so-called knowledge are the antithesis of knowledge, and are totally inappropriate for anything but tired religionists who want to stop thinking once and for all. Flat earth was stable. Blood letting was stable. Burning witches was stable. Wikipedia should be PROUD of it's article flow and instability - it means every new visitor is always welcome, and their contribution is valued to "edit every page". Otherwise, it's the Wikipedia of the dead.
Now, if you can build a tool to list articles that haven't changed the longest, that might be cool. But, what does it mean? Does it mean that that article is "stable" or "stoopid" or "boring" or "arcane" or ... anyone guess! It's totally meaningless!
The whole point of Wikipedia was trusting another source than academia, so-called authority, and so-called stability! People who say "it can't go into Wikipedia unless it's been published somewhere else first" drive me crazy - it's not "Book-report-a-pedia". Like the scene at the beginning of Stargate (where he corrects the translation of hieroglyphs saying "that textbook is wrong, but everyone still uses it anyway"), all those mindsets are doing is re-perpetuating the supremacy of the pedantic (and wrong) decisions of dead writers and dead publishers. Please leave them buried. Please bring life to Wikipedia. Wikipedia was supposed to breathe NEW LIFE into knowledge pooling, not just be a collective (ces)pool of the dead.
The problem with Wikipedia is NOT the contributors who dump the most inane stuff into Wikipedia. The problem is the first arrivers thinking they now own Wikipedia, and are shocked, SHOCKED, at the messy, uncontrollable, naive contributions from people who had the poor lack of forethought to arrive second!
Earlier: "...we are very under-manned..."
Peter Blaise responds: Actually, we are, Wikipedia is, inappropriately administered ... where does this thread belong? ... oh, it's part of EVERY thread, so why even bother with subject lines!!! Back to Veropedia ...
Veropedia is a sham, sort of a Google archives via Wikipedia admin approval of the same crap and brick walls against new growth at Wikipedia (they get their blue links from Wikipedia anyway, so the site isn't really free-standing at all ...). From http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1321247 "...no disambiguation links...candidates for inclusion are reviewed by recognized academics and experts..." Hahahahahah! Yet another mutual masturbation society! "...The wiki is written by the victors..."
Lemme see, search for "photography" on Veropedia, 73 hits of which 2 are valid, then on Wikipedia, 27,630 hits of which ... well, I stopped counting after 5,000 valid hits!
My point is NOT the Wikipedia is broken and valueless, but that some people are sequestering themselves on one or another side of a wall that they themselves built. That wall is built by some and is trying to be opened or torn down by others. But that wall is NOT Wikipedia, it is ONE PART OF Wikipedia. How important and definitive a part? I'll let "history" decide. My point is to grow Wikipedia to let go of wall building tools altogether, but until then, we'll have to deal with the "build a wall" versus "tear it down" dynamic. My proposal? Said it before, but until others figure out how to incorporate it, I just sound repetitive if I put in every post!
Fight on! Eventually someone will exhaust themselves, and then Wikipedia will have lots of walls and wall maintainers, or...
==
PS - ad hominem simply means "to (ad) the man (hominem")" or, a personal attack, such as calling someone a name, ridiculing them, accusing them of some personality deficiency, or such. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ad+hominem
On 21/12/2007, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
The whole point of Wikipedia was trusting another source than academia, so-called authority, and so-called stability! People who say "it can't go into Wikipedia unless it's been published somewhere else first" drive me crazy - it's not "Book-report-a-pedia". Like the scene at the beginning of Stargate (where he corrects the translation of hieroglyphs saying "that textbook is wrong, but everyone still uses it anyway"), all those mindsets are doing is re-perpetuating the supremacy of the pedantic (and wrong) decisions of dead writers and dead publishers. Please leave them buried. Please bring life to Wikipedia. Wikipedia was supposed to breathe NEW LIFE into knowledge pooling, not just be a collective (ces)pool of the dead.
It depends who you ask. As far as I understood it, that it was meant to produce an encyclopedia was the only definition. Producing a stable, fixed, *paper* version was certainly being actively pursued in mid-2004.
While it may well have the potential to be much more than that, it's simply factually incorrect to state that this was "the whole point."
- d.
Peter Blaise responds: "Stable versions" of any so-called knowledge are the antithesis of knowledge, and are totally inappropriate for anything but tired religionists who want to stop thinking once and for all.
It depends on if you're using "stable" as descriptive or prescriptive. We're using it descriptively, "stable version" basically just means "this article hasn't had any major changes made to it recently". It doesn't mean "this article shouldn't have any major changes made to it".
The idea is that an article being more stable is a sign that it is likely to be more reliable (how true that assumption is, I don't know, but I think there's at least some truth to it). It's certainly not a guarantee, but it's a good piece of evidence.