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