Bryan Derksen wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Well, if there's a page that is updated regularly, and you want people to always see the latest, probably vandalized, version, then *don't set any version of it as stable*!
Doesn't this defeat one of the main purposes of stable versions, marking a version of frequently-vandalized articles so that our readers and mirrors can have some reassurance that what they're looking at isn't a pack of blatant lies?
This was for a special case. Usually, IMHO every article, with the possible exception of new articles about rapidly changing events, should have a stable version.
I love the idea of stable versions and such, but I really don't think it's a good idea to have these new features change the default behavior of Wikipedia significantly. Maybe later after we get some solid data and experience with how stable versions are turning out we could consider making them the default view, but for now I think it should be just an option that can be ignored by those who don't want to deal with it.
I actually haven't implemented the "view stable as default" mechanism yet, and there's no technical need for that. Currently, there's only a header describing what kind of version you see right now, and if there's an alternative. I won't mind if it stays that way.
The current state of the feature can be seen at: http://www.magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php
The difference between the current state of wikipedia and wikipedia with stable versions is this: With the former, readers get a wiki to see; with the latter, they get an encyclopedia.
But our goal isn't to _show_ an encyclopedia to people, it's to get people to help us _write_ one. Let Answers.com worry about showing our material to people.
Funny. en.wikipedia.org says in its logo "Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia". So when normal people (not wikipedians;-) come to that page, what do you think they expect to see? It's not "Wikipedia, the wiki that develops texts for the encyclopedia you can see at Answers.com".
The status and the *perception* of wikipedia has changed since 2001. We're not trying to build an encyclopedia anymore. We /have become/ one. That should reflect. After all, we're primarily an encyclopedia. The wiki technology have done miracles for getting us where we are. And while our growth is continuing both in article count and in depth of the individual article, we now have a /new responsibility/ to our users.
In 2001, we were not really used as a source of knowledge. That /might/ have started 2002, or later. Today, we are one of the largest repositories of knowledge. We can now either 1. teach every single one of our potential users in the ways of wikis and how to use them, look through the page history, and still treat everything they read with utmost caution, /or/ 2. present a random user a good encyclopedia, with the option for more (current versions, editing, the like)
I'd prefer #1, but, well... :-)
Magnus