On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske
<magnus.manske(a)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 @