Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going against the principle of Wikipedia.
Articles are continuously edited over time. As time goes on, ever-newer versions will be marked as the stable version which is first shown to the public.
If that means "no-one could edit them", then we already have that model! You can't change a given revision on Wikipedia; you can only make a new revision based on it.
But even worse, today when we freeze an article to show a stable revision, *nobody* can edit it except an elite cabal of sysops. Is that "open"? Is that "free"?
Do you really think it's better for us to *forbid everybody* from editing pages instead of finally doing what we've talked about for years and *allowing everybody* to edit them and let the "first-glance" stable versions move forward to catch up after a review?
I say we *allow everybody* to edit. That means making the stable-version system that's been planned since 2002 but put off until the project matured more.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)