--- Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Some of you might have notices a slight problem with this - there is no stable version feature in Wikipedia. As usual, we have discussed a lot about the stable version (which is good), and AFAIK most people agreed that it won't do much harm, depending which version is presented (I'd consider that consensus, provided we still show the current version first), and then, in good tradition, did - nothing.
As I said time and again, I don't care if it's my stable version extension, or Tim Starling's, or one donated by a merciful god, but we should *use* one, on every wikipedia that wants it. And /soon/. Like now. Or next week. There's nothing left to discuss, except repeating old arguments over again.
I agree. Lets get on with it. The only thing we were arguing about is what version to show by default to anons. If we simply do as we do now - show the most current one - then I agree that we have a consensus. A print version is exactly the type of thing that a stable version should support. Id also like the foundation or a subsidiary to run a mirror with GoogleAds that hosted stable versions and which the current Wikipedia versions linked to (all revenue would support the foundations charitable mission and projects ; including Wikipedia). But that can wait a bit.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com