Honestly, I am not sure that anything in the direction of review/stable release etc. should be done, at least as long as the average article quality continues to rise, which I think it does.
People who complain that they can't trust anything they find in Wikipedia should be commended for their healthy attitude; it is much more dangerous to think "see, it says here, this is part of the stable Wikipedia, so everything on this page must be right".
That said, here's my minimalistic suggestion: everything works exactly as it does now, except that every page gets two additional links: "View last reviewed version of this article" and "I have reviewed this version of the article and I think it is ok". The history of every article would record who has reviewed which version of the article and when.
The set of all "last reviewed versions" could then be seen as the "stable" Wikipedia and could be pressed on CD. This would at least guard against vandalism, stupid jokes and blatant propaganda and advertising that sometimes gets through.
The only issue is: who is allowed to review articles? The pragmatic answer would be: all sysops. A code of honor is probably in order, saying that no sysop should review an article that they themselves substantially contributed to.
Axel
At 01:17 AM 5/23/02 +0200, you wrote:
That said, here's my minimalistic suggestion: everything works exactly as it does now, except that every page gets two additional links: "View last reviewed version of this article" and "I have reviewed this version of the article and I think it is ok". The history of every article would record who has reviewed which version of the article and when.
How about having a page which presents links to articles in decreasing order of time since they were last reviewed? If everyone every once in a while grabbed a few off the top to review, then eventually all of the articles would be cycled through on a regular basis.
Personally, though, I think things are pretty good as they are right now.
-- "Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:17:39AM +0200, Axel Boldt wrote:
Honestly, I am not sure that anything in the direction of review/stable release etc. should be done, at least as long as the average article quality continues to rise, which I think it does.
I completely agree with Alex here. The openness and accesability of Wikpedia are both the causes of its success and its vulnerability. If reviewing didn't work for Nupedia, why do you think it will work now? How do you expect to be able to review 30.000+ articles?
What bothers me is that this again a small extension that makes the interface and the software a little more complex. I will repeat ad nauseam that everything about Wikipedia should be kept as simple as possible. Wikpedia has already strayed far too far from the path of WikiWiki.
-- Jan Hidders
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org