I like DPB's idea of gentle milestones. It would give contributors something to aim for, like:
* Let's work together co-operatively and try to create the next milestone version.
It would also make it easier to do a "diff" between the current version, and the one which (months *ago*) was agreed upon as a consensus version:
* On the article's History Page, just click the "cur" link on the milestone version.
If the milestone idea gains traction, what's the next step? Submit the idea directly to the developers, or create some sort of vote page at the website and wait 2 weeks?
Ed Poor Bureaucrat
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I like DPB's idea of gentle milestones.
+1
If the milestone idea gains traction, what's the next step? Submit the idea directly to the developers, or create some sort of vote page at the website and wait 2 weeks?
I hear you :-) As this would limit wikipedia editing in no way, I don't think we need to wait for a big vote. But, *what* to develop? How to define a milestone? Something like
* At least three logged-in users agree on a version to be a milestone * No logged-in user disagrees with that within a week of the first "yes"-vote
This could be based on my voting system, which can already tag both current and old versions. Or we should wait for Brion's database restructuring, so we can tag *real* article versions (instead of timestamps, as my hack does).
This might actually replace the "stable version" idea in the long run...
Magnus