This is a very interesting discussion--the issue has been raised before, but you state it very articulately. On 12 Sep 2001, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: This raises issues about the future that I think are very interesting to think about (even if they are in the somewhat distant future). Basically, I think the occasional temporary degradation of articles is an acceptable disadvantage of our present system, given that the what causes that disadvantage, namely our completely open system, creates huge (and ever more rapidly increasing) amounts of generally reliable content. The other disadvantage mentioned, that references might lead to personal embarrassment, doesn't strike me as a terribly huge disadvantage. Who, after all, is going to *cite* a Wikipedia article? Nobody, or at least, nobody before we have "stable versions" of articles (if we *ever* do) that are given a stamp of approval (perhaps by Nupedia review groups). But I think we probably will, in the distant (how distant, who knows) future, have an official approval process (that is kept carefully separate from the article-generation process). It would make sense to save copies of the exact article that was approved, for citation purposes, or to populate a database of "approved articles." The way I see it, pretty soon, Wikipedia is going to have 100,000 articles, and Wikipedia will be a household name. Even those who have scoffed at the idea of a wiki-based collaborative project will see value in the result, and a natural movement will be afoot to certify or approve certain articles, so that the public can trust that the information in those articles is reliable. I think at that time we probably won't have any trouble at all getting suitable experts interested in serving on approval committees. Again, we might try to tap Nupedia for this purpose--if they're willing, which they might not be, but who knows. Anyway, Wikipedia can't be *completely* up-to-date unless we've got a *lot* of people working on it in many different areas. And, at this stage anyway, the best way to keep a lot of people working on it is by keeping it completely free. Larry

Having "stable" versions of articles requires the ability to "lock" pages, which requires new or adapted software. If the wiki software is changed anyway, I'd suggest a "namespace" mechanism. I already mentioned that somewhere, I just forgot where;). So, here again, my proposal: - Enable article names that have a namespace at the beginning, separated by a ':' - A blank namespace, like ':HomePage', leads to the "normal", current wikipedia - If no namespace is given ('HomePage'), the link is within the current namespace. So, once you view an article with a namespace, it will link to destinations within that namespace unless stated otherwise. - The current namespace is displayed at the top of the page. - Other namespaces that have an article with the same name are displayed as links to these articles. That would enable the following scenario: - Article "xyz" is developed as usual - Some authorized person decides that this article is great, and cpoies it to "stable:xyz" - The article "xyz" can be developed further as usual - The article "stable:xyz" is for view only, unless you have special authorization, and can be linked to or cited - Links in "stable:xyz" would, without changes, automatically go to other "stable:" articles, while the same article in the ":" namespace would link to normal wikipedia articles - A link within the "stable:" namespace that leads to a blank page could automatically lead to the normal wikipedia, or display a page "no stable version, see the normal one", or something similar. There could also be a "talk" namespace, for example, to get rid of these ugly "/Talk" pages ;) Or a "data" namespace, to store, say, famous texts that are in the PD now. I don't see a problem implementing such a mechanism, and it won't hinder wikipedians in any way, it just adds an option. Magnus

See my column for the formatted version: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Tim_Chambers/Wikipedia_configuration_manageme… There was [a thread on the Wikipedia list] that got me thinking about configuration management for Wikipedia. I agree with the need to accommodate Wikipedia in citations. I also agree with the need to somehow "freeze" articles. So here's an outline of my proposal: 1. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a perpetual work in progress. I think the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack article is evidence of the value in this principle. Wikipedia contributes to the universal body of human knowledge, offering the unique benefits of Wiki technology: global participation, hypertext, up-to-date information, etc. Others may want to flesh out this mission statement. We must never compromise this key contribution of Wikipedia. 2. Wikipedia also strives to be academically relevant by enabling periodic releases of encyclopedia versions. The period may be much shorter than a conventional encyclopedia, but most information providers seem to be settling on annual updates. This also builds on the strong tradition of hardcopy almanac?s. The 2001 edition of the Wikipedia needs to get out soon if we go this route. 3. Wikipedia articles can be versioned even more often than the whole Wikipedia. We already do this thanks to UseModWiki, but the calls for "freezing" articles are begging for a baselining system where an article can, to some degree, be called "ready." They'll never be "finished," but many are "ready" for "release." So that brings me to my overall vision. [I work] in the field of software process engineering, and from my perspective Wikipedia needs a [configuration management system]?. We have a [revision control system]? for individual articles, but the 10,000 article mark seems a good point to release our first version of the Wikipedia. Eventually (maybe very soon?), Wikipedia will need a supervised release process. This model is analagous to other open source projects. For instance, Debian released version 2.2r3 on April 17th, 2001. To be a part of that release, developers of all parts of Linux had to "get on the release train," as it's sometimes called. Here's a start to get discussion of Wikipedia's configuration management system going. Current URLs at www.wikipedia.com would continue to reflect the current understanding of the "wild and wooly world." Articles are "live." But some new links can be added to each article. Every "released" article could have a link to view diffs compared with older released versions of the article, not just the "older revisions." We still show visitors the live copy, but we have a link to "release 2001" or release "September 2001" and so on. These named releases are frozen for all time. So the world will know what Wikipedia in 2001 had to say about the universe. There isn't an "edit" link on released pages, but there's a "visit the live, ongoing work-in-progress version of this article," which still has the edit link. I still have a lot of vocational work done today, so enough avocational time for today. Talk amongst yourselves... <>< Tim __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/