Maru Dubshinki wrote:
And you don't seem to realize how adversarial and
prejudicial the idea of
stable versions is -
"Oh, we have an up to date version, but we don't dare show it as the default
displayed article
because our up to date articles are apparently so crappy that they need to
be specially cleared
by our editors."
Or, you could try something new and use NPOV:
"This is a stable version of this article, which has been checked by an
editor. You can see and a edit newer, unchecked, work-in-progress
version of this article [[here]]".
Not so hard, is it? :-)
Not to mention the simple effect of making the current
revision even harder
to find- the more work
a reader has to do to get to something, the less they will read it!
"Even harder"? Currently, the current version is the first page to
see.
Not so hard, now is it? (I keep repeating that phrase to you - there
might be a pattern).
Under the proposed system, anons would have to (gasp!) click on a link,
an action of unheard difficulty on the web.
If they plan to hand around longer or regularly, they will usually
create a user account, where you can turn that off altogether. Good ol'
times at last!
For an example: the New York times
is only, I would estimate, about half again as hard to read as USA Today
(for an equivalent amount of text);
yet the NY Times has 1,136,433 (
http://www.nytco.com/investors-nyt-circulation.html) readers, as opposed to
more than 2.25 million readers for USA Today. One is easier, and the other
is not.
I pride myself of my rather active imagination, but I can not figure out
what the writing style of the NY Times has to do with stable versions on
wikipedia. And I sincerely doubt that is my fault.
Apologies if I sound too mocking, but
* I really don't see what the fuss is about (didn't read a good argument
against it yet)
* as I wrote in another mail to this list, I don't really insist on
making the stable version the default. Wasn't even my idea, but it made
sense to me.
Magnus