But passers-by will always be exposed to the underbelly: there's no way
every single article in the wiki could have a stable , agreed-on version.
The top 5% of articles, sure (and those articles will command
disproportionate traffic), but
The solution is to have a really, really good interface that makes it
absolutely clear that (1) the version they're seeing is dynamic, and (2)
there's also a stable version, a click away.
On 12/29/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
One could argue that if there are current events
that lead to drastic
changes to an article,
* the stable version can be "unset", thus displaying the current version
again. Reason: The old stable version is obviuosly outdated :-)
* a page could be set to a "current events" or "live" mode
individually,
similar to the soft protection tag. This could overrule any stable
version for the time being. That would need a (minor) software change,
though.
And one could then also argue that these features would do away with the
basis on which people are arguing for showing the "stable" version by
default - random passers-by would once again be exposed to the raw
underbelly of Wikipedia with no reassurance that there's no vandalism,
lies, libel, etc in what they're seeing. We would no doubt have had news
of our "stable by default" policy spread far and wide in the media by
that point so this could make the situation even worse, since visitors
would now be expecting to see only vetted content when they click a
Wikipedia link (moreso than they already do, that is).
I really think the best solution is just better education for passers-by
of how Wikipedia works - more obvious disclaimers, "this is a work in
progress" banners, etc. Ideally, stuff that would entice them to
contribute themselves when they see problems.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog -
http://wikip.blogspot.com