Brion Vibber wrote:
IMHO the opposite needs to be true; reviewed, stable versions need to be right on top, as what the public sees by default.
Sure, there'll be a big fat message showing that 78573 more edits have been made to [[George W. Bush]] since this reviewed version, with a handy link to go right to it and see the changes, but they're gonna see the stable copy first.
We've spent so much time hyping Wikipedia that it's become quite popular at its present location; a separate or hidden click-through stable set will basically never be seen and can't reasonably answer the (totally valid) criticisms that a reference site needs to be a little bit conservative on its public face.
That sounds about right to me. Software developers of course have already arrived at that solution---grab the old, stable, conservative version if you're going to be whiny; if you use the CVS version, don't blame us if it's not done, because it's not supposed to be. =]
(Although those of us who are eventualists haven't been "hyping Wikipedia" in the first place. Perhaps those who have been hyping it before it's ready shouldn't have been.)
-Mark