On 12/21/05, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, but only after lengthened amounts of consensus...
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"?
I haven't yet heard of anyone freezing an article to create a stable
version. The concept of a stable version doesn't yet exist. Sure, FAs are
semi-stable, and all edits to them are generally perused and checked, but
that doesn't mean they're not full open. So that argument doesn't work - we
*never* freeze an article today to show a stable version!