Magnus Manske wrote:
As I said before, the question is if we are primarily a
work-in-progress first, with link to stable version) or an encyclopedia
(show the stable version first, and link to the work-in-progress).
But this is _also_ a false dichotomy. I say we're option number three: a
project to _write_ a free encyclopedia that happens to have hit upon a
wiki as a the best means to that end that we've come up with so far.
I'm not fanatically dedicated to the "wiki way", I don't think it's
sort of prime ideal we should hold before all else. We could use some
other means to write a free encyclopedia instead, perhaps by winning a
giant lottery and buying the copyrights to existing encyclopedias to
relicence under the GFDL. But the key point is that our goal is
_writing_ an encyclopedia rather than just displaying the best version
we've managed to come up with so far. If you were proposing something
that departed from "wikiness" but that I thought would help the writing
process I'd be all over it with sloppy kisses.
You can buy the German wikipedia on DVD. €9,90
including a softcover
book about Wikipedia. This is the third release of this DVD, by the way.
I'm very happy for them. I work exclusively on the English encyclopedia,
however, so my point still stands. Furthermore, I point out that (from
what I've heard) they used an approach making a "publishable" copy that
didn't change the ongoing functioning of de.wikipedia in any way - they
forked a copy and then culled out the usable stuff from it in private. A
stable version tag would help this approach immensely without in any way
needing to be the default view on the "working" copy.
In any event, as soon as we've got Wikipedia 1.0 I'm going to throw a
brief private party and then get right to work on upgrading it to
Wikipedia 2.0. I go where the work is being done.