--- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)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