Hi,
I was quite surprised to see today in the Wikipedia Signpost that the semi-protection policy had passed and I hadn't even heard a poll was conducted on it.
I think it's really important that everyone is notified in a much more organised manner about such important policy chances.
Now, the reason I'm writing here is because of the looming "stable versions" policy. I think this is a policy that contravenes the principles of Wikipedia, and I've raised this on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions) It would be great if other people could comment on this policy.
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However, let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension the success, of Wikipedia.
At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring errors, etc.
Let's maintain Wikipedia's liberty!
Ronline
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted, which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy, there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal, takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.
I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions, are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.
Ronline
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted, which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy, there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal, takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.
I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions, are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.
Ronline
No, I believe that the core values are that Wikipedia is intended to be/become an encyclopedia, and that it should be free, as in freedom to use and make derivative works (and to fork, if necessary). Freedom to edit is hugely important, but secondary to those core goals.
Having stable versions, and using those as a basis for moving forward, achieves all of these goals, with the primary two foremost. Thinks how open-source software gets made: anyone can contribute patches, but not everyone has CVS commit, and releases are in turn made of selected sets of patches (not necessarily the most recent ones, either).
If we get it wrong, then the policy can always be changed back, or, at the very worst, someone can still fork the project, and the two styles of development can continue to cross-pollinate.
The virtue of the multi-version approach is that it allows both the "pure-Wiki" and the "sifter" approaches at once, but without forking the project.
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
No, I believe that the core values are that Wikipedia is intended to be/become an encyclopedia, and that it should be free, as in freedom to use and make derivative works (and to fork, if necessary). Freedom to edit is hugely important, but secondary to those core goals.
Writing an encyclopedia is the goal, but we must be careful not to kill the golden goose that gave us what we have so far.
I would like prefilled new article templates (presumably an option logged-in editors could switch off) as I outlined on wikien-l:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html
- and to switch article creation back on for anons on en:.
1. The editors of good will can see from the prefill what an article should be shaped like and write better new articles. 1a. Those it annoys can switch it off. 2. The editors of bad will are just creating login names anyway.
- d.
Writing an encyclopedia is the goal, but we must be careful not to kill the golden goose that gave us what we have so far.
I would like prefilled new article templates (presumably an option logged-in editors could switch off) as I outlined on wikien-l:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html
- and to switch article creation back on for anons on en:.
- The editors of good will can see from the prefill what an article
should be shaped like and write better new articles. 1a. Those it annoys can switch it off. 2. The editors of bad will are just creating login names anyway.
- d.
Exactly. I support article templates, and tools that make Wikipedia more consistent, but all forms of restricting access are anti-wiki. For us liberal Wikipedians, they basically kill off the project from the start.
Ronline
--- "Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)" rowikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions, are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.
Wikipedia is free in the sense that its content can be distributed freely. Being free to edit is a means to an end to create the encyclopedia. It is not the point of it. That said, this is my understanding of the two features that will hopefully be implemented in January.
1) Delayed editing: Something that has been talked about and wanted for years. This would give admins to the ability to soft-protect pages that are frequent targets of vandalism (such as [[George W. Bush]] on the English Wikipedia). Ideally this feature would automatically delay edits by anons and new users and post them, again automatically, after an amount of time that was set by an admin for that page (similar to setting IP/user name block time periods). This would give RC patrolers time to cancel vandalistic edits before they are posted for all to see. But last I heard this feature (so far) would require a great deal of manual effort by admins; one would need to set versions manually and I do not think the feature distinguishes between anons, new users or old users. I personally think that this feature should not go live until it is fully functional (esp since it is way too similar, as is, to the below feature). The point of this feature is to help avoid displaying vandalism.
2) Approved versioning: A new user class would be created that would be charged with approving certain article versions. Accuracy, bias, completeness and readability would be checked (by reader article validation and the approving user). If an article version is good enough (sic: does not need to be feature article quality; just good enough) in those regards, then an approved version would be set. A prominent link to this version would then automatically be placed on top of the article. Users would have the choice to set their preferences so they see these approved versions by default. But, and this is important, the live version would be displayed by default. But all live versions would be clearly labeled as such (even those w/o approved versions) so readers know what they are getting. So Wikipedia would not fundamentally change as a result. The point of this feature is to give readers some assurance, however small, that what they are reading is more likely true and reasonably good than not.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
- Delayed editing: Something that has been talked about and wanted for
years. This would give admins to the ability to soft-protect pages that are frequent targets of vandalism (such as [[George W. Bush]] on the English Wikipedia). Ideally this feature would automatically delay edits by anons and new users and post them, again automatically, after an amount of time that was set by an admin for that page (similar to setting IP/user name block time periods). This would give RC patrolers time to cancel vandalistic edits before they are posted for all to see. But last I heard this feature (so far) would require a great deal of manual effort by admins; one would need to set versions manually and I do not think the feature distinguishes between anons, new users or old users. I personally think that this feature should not go live until it is fully functional (esp since it is way too similar, as is, to the below feature). The point of this feature is to help avoid displaying vandalism.
Mmm, yes. This is exactly like the new Encarta proposal. Do people not realise how anti-Wiki delayed editing is? The *core* values, the ones that are constantly advertised for Wikipedia, is that "anyone can edit it" and "edits are displayed immediately".
Neil also mentioned that the policy can always be changed back, and that there is always the chance of forking the project. Forking would be the destruction of Wikipedia, since it would basically form two competing communities. As Neil said:
The virtue of the multi-version approach is that it allows both the
"pure-Wiki" and the "sifter" approaches at once, but without forking the project.
Exactly. That is, pure-Wiki would be compromised. People would view the stable versions *first* and then maybe look over the draft editable versions. That automatically changes Wikipedia's nature by a huge margin.
Ronline
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
[...] Do people not
realise how anti-Wiki delayed editing is? The *core* values, the ones that are constantly advertised for Wikipedia, is that "anyone can edit it" and "edits are displayed immediately".
Those are tactics to build a free encyclopedia, not "core values". Process is secondary to the result, not the other way around. If WP were to be somehow finished tomorrow, and all editing was permanently disabled as a result, I would be completely happy because the goal was achieved.
Stan
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted, which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy, there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal, takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.
I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions, are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.
I think you have misunderstood the concept of stable versions entirely.
Currently, new versions of an article can be added through editing an existing version of it. This *does not* change the existing version, it merely produces a new one, which is shown as default when you request a page for reading without specifying the version number. Noone can, and noone ever could, edit any *version* of an article. Just *the* article, by creating a new version. That point seems to have escaped your attention.
A stable version merely changes the *default view* from the latest version to another that has been declared stable by someone trustworthy. You can still see the latest version if you want, and you can still create new ones based on any old version.
So, the only thing that will changes is that for anons (and logged-in users depending on their settings) reading articles, the *initial* view will be the stable version. This features a text like "this is a stable version, the latest version is [[here]]" in the header.
So, despite your rather polemic claims, there is *no* (as in *0*, *zero*, *nada*) freedom taken away from anyone. Everyone can still edit every article.
On the contrary, setting a stable version will again allow the editing of perpetually protected pages! So, more freedom to anyone.
I don't think I can explain this any clearer without reverting to drawn images, so if you don't get it now, I can't help you ;-)
Magnus
I think you have misunderstood the concept of stable versions entirely.
Currently, new versions of an article can be added through editing an existing version of it. This *does not* change the existing version, it merely produces a new one, which is shown as default when you request a page for reading without specifying the version number. Noone can, and noone ever could, edit any *version* of an article. Just *the* article, by creating a new version. That point seems to have escaped your attention.
A stable version merely changes the *default view* from the latest version to another that has been declared stable by someone trustworthy. You can still see the latest version if you want, and you can still create new ones based on any old version.
There is something that you don't seem to understand. By making the stable version default to the majority of readers, then Wikipedia's instant editability becomes compromised. I'll give you an example - say a stable version has been created for an article about the Romanian economy. Monthly, stats change, and I'd also like update some prose about the role of ICT in the Romanian economy. So, as an editor, I go to the editable version and change it, and - bang - as you said, it's instantly there.
BUT, and this is the big but, my edits would not be instantly displayed on the default version. People coming into the Romanian economy article would see the old stable version, and only *if* they choose to see the updated version, which people won't do for lack of verifiability, would they see the new data. Now, you're going to say to me - aah, but the stable version can always be updated. Yes, I concede that, but the proposal states that for a stable version to be approved, it must go through a lot of consensus (otherwise, what's the point?).
So, I hope you see that stable versions goes against the very nature of "instantly-editable" Wikipedia. People will no longer be encouraged to update stats, to add new, *good* information, if they know that their information won't be immediately accessible, but will only be featured on what is in practical purposes a secondary draft version.
So, the only thing that will changes is that for anons (and logged-in users depending on their settings) reading articles, the *initial* view will be the stable version. This features a text like "this is a stable version, the latest version is [[here]]" in the header.
Do you realise that that is still a very significant change, as explained above?
So, despite your rather polemic claims, there is *no* (as in *0*,
*zero*, *nada*) freedom taken away from anyone. Everyone can still edit every article.
Don't get me wrong here - I'm not trying to make polemic claims. I'm not trying to insult anyone. It's just a bit annoying that Wikipedia is about to launch something that will change its nature significantly, and there seems to be no awareness to it. What's more, everyone is saying "well, the changes aren't big at all. Why are you worrying?"
On the contrary, setting a stable version will again allow the editing
of perpetually protected pages! So, more freedom to anyone.
What perpetually protected pages? Not to insult anyone, but this smells so much like election propaganda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy says:
A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for:
- Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagefrom vandalism. - Maintaining the integrity of the site's logo. - Maintaining the integrity of key copyright and license pages (for legal reasons). - Maintaining the integrity of press releases. - Protecting certain *"system administration"* pages. - Protecting the often-used texts in the MediaWiki namespace. - User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism.
So, the policy doesn't allow for *articles* to be protected. And, never have I seen an article protected indefinitely before.
Ronline
On 12/21/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
There is something that you don't seem to understand. By making the stable version default to the majority of readers, then Wikipedia's instant editability becomes compromised. I'll give you an example - say a stable version has been created for an article about the Romanian economy. Monthly, stats change, and I'd also like update some prose about the role of ICT in the Romanian economy. So, as an editor, I go to the editable version and change it, and - bang - as you said, it's instantly there.
There are some independent issues there have been mixed up, confusing the discussion:
1) Using the review process to somehow decide that a certain revision of an article is the good one. That's the stable revision.
2) What to present readers. The latest revision? The last stable revision? Some combination of the two?
3) What to do if some flaw is found in the stable revision, and there are 827 other revisions after that, so that it's not possible to just fix a spelling error. A special editing of the stable revision would effectively "fork" the article.
I trust that point 3) is not a big problem - if an article goes downhill after a stable revision, it's more important to fix the new revisions than fix minor errors in the stable one.
Discussions about point 2) should not obfuscate the point that a way for selecting good revision is needed. What we'll precisely do with them can be argued separately.
Alfio
Alfio Puglisi wrote:
There are some independent issues there have been mixed up, confusing the discussion:
Indeed, this is the usual pattern when stable versions are discussed. :)
- Using the review process to somehow decide that a certain revision
of an article is the good one. That's the stable revision.
No problem here, always nice to add more tools to the toolbox. I've been wanting this sort of development since forever.
- What to present readers. The latest revision? The last stable
revision? Some combination of the two?
This is where I'm differing from Magnus. I think the "default" view should be the latest version, not the stable version, because that's the version that we need editors to actually _work_ on. Wikipedia is a work in progress, our goal is to _produce_ an encyclopedia rather than merely _displaying_ one. Displaying or otherwise making use of the encyclopedia we're writing can be done by our many mirrors, or whoever else wants to - the "stable" tag will presumably be in the database for them to base decisions on. When someone comes to a Wikipedia page we should be saying "here's what we're working on, can you do anything to help us improve it?" I suspect by instead saying "here's our best effort so far, we'll let you know if we come up with anything better" we're going to lose a lot of impulse editors that may subsequently metamorphose into Wikipediholics.
By all means, have a prominent "click here to see the stable version of the article" up in the banner and on the sidebar and in the footer and wherever else it can be spammed. Maybe flashing warning signs telling of how the current revision is a work in progress (handy even if there's no stable version to see). But IMO making it the default is ungood.
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
There is something that you don't seem to understand. By making the stable version default to the majority of readers, then Wikipedia's instant editability becomes compromised. I'll give you an example - say a stable version has been created for an article about the Romanian economy. Monthly, stats change, and I'd also like update some prose about the role of ICT in the Romanian economy. So, as an editor, I go to the editable version and change it, and - bang - as you said, it's instantly there.
BUT, and this is the big but, my edits would not be instantly displayed on the default version. People coming into the Romanian economy article would see the old stable version, and only *if* they choose to see the updated version, which people won't do for lack of verifiability, would they see the new data. Now, you're going to say to me - aah, but the stable version can always be updated. Yes, I concede that, but the proposal states that for a stable version to be approved, it must go through a lot of consensus (otherwise, what's the point?).
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*! Or, you could ask someone who has "the power" to check your latest version for becoming stable. This could be easily done though my Tasks feature :-) Finally, on the stable version, /there's a text with link at the very top of it/, pointing you to the current, latest version.
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.
What perpetually protected pages?
Picking one example, I think [[en:Geroge W. Bush]] has been protected since before the last election, which was a year ago. This is due to repeated vandalism. There are several more, though. This could be fixed through stable versions.
Magnus
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?
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.
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.
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
Magnus Manske wrote:
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
- 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... :-)
I must admit I've been strongly pushing 1. in press interviews ;-)
- d.
Magnus Manske wrote:
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.
Nor I. A "view most recent stable version" link would be handy to let people easily jump there, but not really vital.
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".
If people have a misperception about Wikipedia, I think we should try to change that misperception rather than redefining the project to fit it.
The status and the *perception* of wikipedia has changed since 2001. We're not trying to build an encyclopedia anymore. We /have become/ one.
We are in possession of many of the raw materials for one, but we are still a work in progress. It says so on [[Wikipedia:About]], which I find more useful as a reference than the tagline on a logo. If we're not trying to build an encyclopedia any more should we remove the edit links entirely? I know you're not really proposing that, but only due to assuming good faith - taking your statement solely at face value implies to me that you think Wikipedia's "done."
It can't be "done." What would I do for the rest of the century? I've already made room in my schedule.
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
- 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... :-)
I call logical fallacy, this is clearly a false dichotomy. Why must option 1 demand perfection in order to be acceptable, with option two being the only possible alternative if perfection cannot be achieved?
I say we go with option 3: "do what's best for developing Wikipedia's content by trying to get more people involved in editing even if this is not ideal for people who come to Wikipedia solely to read it, because our most important target audience is not those who come here to read our material but those who want to _reuse_ it." That's the whole point of doing this under the GFDL, after all.
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*!
Well, someone will come and will, anyway.
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.
Magnus, this is a big shift, you must understand. It is not a minor editing change. The point is, as you said above, that we're changing our wiki nature to sort of become half-wiki. With stable versions, particularly if shown as default, Wikipedia will become a static encyclopedia, with the option to then edit articles as a secondary structure. Wikipedia is a wiki and should always stay a wiki. Any systematic form of article protection/anti-wiki structures outside of temporary bans and stuff like that is a major shift and IMO goes against the principles of wiki.
Secondly, we really need to have widespread community consensus on this. It's great to see that so many people are giving their opinions here. I don't know what the plan is to lauch stable versions - whether they will simply be included in the new MediaWiki, but I think before it's introduced, people need to really be aware of this shift.
Picking one example, I think [[en:Geroge W. Bush]] has been protected
since before the last election, which was a year ago. This is due to repeated vandalism. There are several more, though. This could be fixed through stable versions.
Well, George Bush isn't protected actually. I mean, maybe it's protected 25% of the time due to vandalism, but that's only because it goes through patterns of protected-unprotected-protected, etc. It's not systematically, permanently protected. Yes, this could be fixed for stable versions, but only at the cost of effectively locking down the main versions of potentially more than 800,000 articles!
Ronline
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) schrieb:
Magnus, this is a big shift, you must understand. It is not a minor editing change. The point is, as you said above, that we're changing our wiki nature to sort of become half-wiki. With stable versions, particularly if shown as default, Wikipedia will become a static encyclopedia, with the option to then edit articles as a secondary structure. Wikipedia is a wiki and should always stay a wiki. Any systematic form of article protection/anti-wiki structures outside of temporary bans and stuff like that is a major shift and IMO goes against the principles of wiki.
As has been discussed time and again, Wikipedia is not primarily a *wiki*, or some social experiment. It is an *encyclopedia* which currently /uses/ a wiki to create content.
So if we have to change the behaviour of the wiki (while keeping it a wiki, please don't say otherwise, it's just not true) in order or serve the main purpose of being an encyclopedia, that's what we'll do.
Secondly, we really need to have widespread community consensus on this. It's great to see that so many people are giving their opinions here. I don't know what the plan is to lauch stable versions - whether they will simply be included in the new MediaWiki, but I think before it's introduced, people need to really be aware of this shift.
I completely agree with this.
Well, George Bush isn't protected actually. I mean, maybe it's protected 25% of the time due to vandalism, but that's only because it goes through patterns of protected-unprotected-protected, etc. It's not systematically, permanently protected. Yes, this could be fixed for stable versions, but only at the cost of effectively locking down the main versions of potentially more than 800,000 articles!
All article versions *are* locked down right now. You can't change any article version on Wikipedia. What you *can* do is to add a new version, more or less based on an old one.
Wether we show the stable version by default and link to the latest version, or the other way around, is a matter of emphasis.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Wether we show the stable version by default and link to the latest version, or the other way around, is a matter of emphasis.
Magnus
Hoi, Having a stable version makes sense when you want to prepare for a paper or a DVD version. The latest version is in my opinion the only version that is a candidate for a new stable version, doing it any other way will open up a set of problems that is too complex to contemplate. Indicating that a stable version exists, is really good and it makes sense to stimulate websites external to Wikipedia to host that content. This way they ensure that they have stable content, that the likelihood of problematic content is reduced. It would also mean that our content would have the same behaviour as the Mediawiki software, the beta version would be with us and we are continuously working towards improvement. We publish as things become available or stable.
One implication of this is that we need a separate distribution channel for our stable content.
From my perspective there are no reasons that I understand why we should show the "stable" version to anonymous users of any of the Wikipedia projects.
Thanks, Gerard
One implication of this is that we need a separate distribution channel for our stable content. Thanks, Gerard
Why don't we call it Nupedia? :)
Pawe³ Dembowski wrote:
One implication of this is that we need a separate distribution channel for our stable content. Thanks, Gerard
Why don't we call it Nupedia? :)
Hoi, It is not like Nupedia because of this one essential difference. This way we distribute BOTH a stable and an unstable version of our content. It is up to the mirrors what they want to host. Thanks, GerardM
On 12/21/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
I think you have misunderstood the concept of stable versions entirely.
Currently, new versions of an article can be added through editing an existing version of it. This *does not* change the existing version, it merely produces a new one, which is shown as default when you request a page for reading without specifying the version number. Noone can, and noone ever could, edit any *version* of an article. Just *the* article, by creating a new version. That point seems to have escaped your attention.
A stable version merely changes the *default view* from the latest version to another that has been declared stable by someone trustworthy. You can still see the latest version if you want, and you can still create new ones based on any old version.
So, the only thing that will changes is that for anons (and logged-in users depending on their settings) reading articles, the *initial* view will be the stable version. This features a text like "this is a stable version, the latest version is [[here]]" in the header.
So, despite your rather polemic claims, there is *no* (as in *0*, *zero*, *nada*) freedom taken away from anyone. Everyone can still edit every article.
On the contrary, setting a stable version will again allow the editing of perpetually protected pages! So, more freedom to anyone.
I don't think I can explain this any clearer without reverting to drawn images, so if you don't get it now, I can't help you ;-)
Magnus
And you don't seem to realize how adversarial and prejudicial the idea of stable versions is - "Oh, we have an up to date version, but we don't dare show it as the default displayed article because our up to date articles are apparently so crappy that they need to be specially cleared by our editors." Not to mention the simple effect of making the current revision even harder to find- the more work a reader has to do to get to something, the less they will read it! For an example: the New York times is only, I would estimate, about half again as hard to read as USA Today (for an equivalent amount of text); yet the NY Times has 1,136,433 ( http://www.nytco.com/investors-nyt-circulation.html) readers, as opposed to
more than 2.25 million readers for USA Today. One is easier, and the other is not.
~Maru
Maru Dubshinki wrote:
And you don't seem to realize how adversarial and prejudicial the idea of stable versions is - "Oh, we have an up to date version, but we don't dare show it as the default displayed article because our up to date articles are apparently so crappy that they need to be specially cleared by our editors."
Or, you could try something new and use NPOV: "This is a stable version of this article, which has been checked by an editor. You can see and a edit newer, unchecked, work-in-progress version of this article [[here]]". Not so hard, is it? :-)
Not to mention the simple effect of making the current revision even harder to find- the more work a reader has to do to get to something, the less they will read it!
"Even harder"? Currently, the current version is the first page to see. Not so hard, now is it? (I keep repeating that phrase to you - there might be a pattern).
Under the proposed system, anons would have to (gasp!) click on a link, an action of unheard difficulty on the web. If they plan to hand around longer or regularly, they will usually create a user account, where you can turn that off altogether. Good ol' times at last!
For an example: the New York times is only, I would estimate, about half again as hard to read as USA Today (for an equivalent amount of text); yet the NY Times has 1,136,433 ( http://www.nytco.com/investors-nyt-circulation.html) readers, as opposed to
more than 2.25 million readers for USA Today. One is easier, and the other is not.
I pride myself of my rather active imagination, but I can not figure out what the writing style of the NY Times has to do with stable versions on wikipedia. And I sincerely doubt that is my fault.
Apologies if I sound too mocking, but * I really don't see what the fuss is about (didn't read a good argument against it yet) * as I wrote in another mail to this list, I don't really insist on making the stable version the default. Wasn't even my idea, but it made sense to me.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Apologies if I sound too mocking, but
- I really don't see what the fuss is about (didn't read a good argument
against it yet)
The fuss is about the fact that under the stable versions policy, Wikipedia will change from becoming a fully open, free wiki encyclopedia, to a static encyclopedia with a wiki *option*. It reminds me of both the failed Nupedia and the structure Encarta announced a few months ago to make itself more "open".
Ronline
I did, and I can assure you that I would never support anything that would have Wikipedia fall back to that. AFAIK, neither would Jimbo, for that matter :-)
Magnus
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
The fuss is about the fact that under the stable versions policy, Wikipedia will change from becoming a fully open, free wiki encyclopedia, to a static encyclopedia with a wiki *option*. It reminds me of both the failed Nupedia and the structure Encarta announced a few months ago to make itself more "open".
I might not agree with your analogies, but if you voice this criticism now, others are likely to do the same, and that means it would be wise to have the counterarguments ready. Instead of saying "we should have stable versions", we should state exactly what the current problem is, so we can tell if the new approach succeeds or fails to solve it.
In the beginning, someone must have thought "if I only had a free online encyclopedia...". What we have now with Wikipedia might not (yet) fulfill the need of an (all-round) encyclopedia, but it certainly is a database of many good articles, from where you can often pick what you need.
Instead of thinking of (the English) Wikipedia as a basket of 850,000 articles in their current version, we can think of it as a basket of X million article-versions. Maybe I like the latest version of the article on Gabon, but the December 3 version of the article on Angola. For another article, say Vadsbo (a stub), I might be frustrated with every version, and this is no different from a topic where Wikipedia has no article at all. Every article-version in this collection of X million is free under GFDL, and can be used as the basis for new article-versions. Anybody can add new article-versions to the collection.
Currently Wikipedia works under the assumption that the latest version of any article is the best one, and the only one that should be linked from other articles, shown to the public and indexed by search engines. It is important that we realize that this *is* an assumption, it does represent a design choice, and not necessarily the optimal one.
If I'm compiling a Wikireader or a similar subset of articles, I might pick my article-versions under very different assumptions.
I'm surprised that Wikipedia mirrors such as Answers.com don't work more like Wikireaders, where a human editor picks useful article-versions and leaves the stubs unmirrored. The added value from such an "editor's choice" would be a perfectly valid business model.
On 12/22/05, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I'm surprised that Wikipedia mirrors such as Answers.com don't work more like Wikireaders, where a human editor picks useful article-versions and leaves the stubs unmirrored. The added value from such an "editor's choice" would be a perfectly valid business model.
You'd have to spend a whole lot of money to get human editors to pick the "useful articles". It might pay off in the really long term, but it'd require a huge investment. And due to the GFDL some other company could just come along and take the results of that huge investment and drive you out of business anyway. I'm not at all surprised no one is doing it.
It's enough of a value add to present a page with results from multiple different sources, organized without all the editing tools and other extraneous things useful only for editing. It's enough of a filter to just leave out article versions which were reverted within 5 minutes (or some other determined time period). Until recently the mirrors tended to perform faster as well.
When I want to read Wikipedia, I go to the mirrors, not to wikipedia.org. Wikipedia just doesn't do a very good job of distributing its product, and it wastes millions of dollars of donation money trying.
This is not to knock the Wikipedia, which does a great job of producing articles. I don't think you'll ever be able to cater to readers and editors on the same site though (although to some extent that comes down to a semantics question of what would be considered "the same site").
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/22/05, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I'm surprised that Wikipedia mirrors such as Answers.com don't work more like Wikireaders, where a human editor picks useful article-versions and leaves the stubs unmirrored. The added value from such an "editor's choice" would be a perfectly valid business model.
You'd have to spend a whole lot of money to get human editors to pick the "useful articles". It might pay off in the really long term, but it'd require a huge investment. And due to the GFDL some other company could just come along and take the results of that huge investment and drive you out of business anyway. I'm not at all surprised no one is doing it.
It's enough of a value add to present a page with results from multiple different sources, organized without all the editing tools and other extraneous things useful only for editing. It's enough of a filter to just leave out article versions which were reverted within 5 minutes (or some other determined time period). Until recently the mirrors tended to perform faster as well.
When I want to read Wikipedia, I go to the mirrors, not to wikipedia.org. Wikipedia just doesn't do a very good job of distributing its product, and it wastes millions of dollars of donation money trying.
It is "long" life the Wikimedia Foundation did never spend millions of dollars. Consequently it cannot have wasted this amount of money. Given the amount of investment in its operations it is also boasts the best cost benefit ratio in the business. Then again you have to define benefit because the WMF does not make a profit. You also have to define cost because we should value the effort that went into our "product".
This is not to knock the Wikipedia, which does a great job of producing articles. I don't think you'll ever be able to cater to readers and editors on the same site though (although to some extent that comes down to a semantics question of what would be considered "the same site").
Anthony
As your basic assumption is wrong, I would also say that your conclusion is wrong. Yes, Wikipedia is an outstanding project it creates both content and it serves content for an unbeatable price.
Thanks, GerardM
On 12/22/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Wikipedia just doesn't do a very good job of distributing its product, and it wastes millions of dollars of donation money trying.
It is "long" life the Wikimedia Foundation did never spend millions of dollars. Consequently it cannot have wasted this amount of money.
If you count the money that was spent by Wikipedia before it was run by the WMF it's well over a million. For just the first quarter of 2006 it's projected at half a million. But feel free to substitute "hundreds of thousands" for "millions" if you'd like.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
You'd have to spend a whole lot of money to get human editors to pick the "useful articles". It might pay off in the really long term, but it'd require a huge investment. And due to the GFDL some other company could just come along and take the results of that huge investment and drive you out of business anyway. I'm not at all surprised no one is doing it.
They certainly didn't for de:. Oh, wait ...
- d.
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
You'd have to spend a whole lot of money to get human editors to pick the "useful articles". It might pay off in the really long term, but it'd require a huge investment. And due to the GFDL some other company could just come along and take the results of that huge investment and drive you out of business anyway. I'm not at all surprised no one is doing it.
They certainly didn't for de:. Oh, wait ...
- d.
You're referring to the producers of the DVD, I assume. I don't know a whole lot about that project but I assumed they used some automated method to select articles for inclusion (there was a mention of only using articles which were last edited by a certain selection of logged in users), not that they had someone go through each one by hand.
I guess it could be worth it to have someone give a quick one minute glance to each article. I wouldn't remove stubs though, they're a huge part of what makes Wikipedia so great. For "only" 200,000 articles at $6/hour it'd cost under $20K. Of course, that kind of assumes a DVD distribution where the barriers to entry are a bit higher than web distribution. It's not like many people are going to pay $10 a pop to read a free encyclopedia on the web.
Anthony
On 22/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
You'd have to spend a whole lot of money to get human editors to pick the "useful articles". It might pay off in the really long term, but it'd require a huge investment. And due to the GFDL some other company could just come along and take the results of that huge investment and drive you out of business anyway. I'm not at all surprised no one is doing it.
They certainly didn't for de:. Oh, wait ...
- d.
You're referring to the producers of the DVD, I assume. I don't know a whole lot about that project but I assumed they used some automated method to select articles for inclusion (there was a mention of only using articles which were last edited by a certain selection of logged in users), not that they had someone go through each one by hand.
First two versions were hand-processed, last version was automated.
First edition: "To produce the CD, a dump of the live Wikipedia had been copied to a separate server, where a team of seventy Wikipedians vetted the material, deleting nonsense articles and obvious copyright violations. Questionable articles were added to a special list, to be reviewed later. The final CD contained 132,000 articles and 1,200 images."
Second edition: "The vetting process was similar to the one for the CD described above and took place on a separate MediaWiki server. The process took about a week and involved 33 Wikipedians, communicating on IRC. To prevent duplication, editors would protect every article that they had reviewed; links to protected articles were shown in green. List of potential spam or vandalism had been produced ahead of time with SQL queries. Unacceptable articles were simply deleted on the spot. The final DVD contained about 205,000 articles, with every article linking to a list of contributors."
Third edition: The vetting process for this version was different and did not involve human intervention. A "white list" of trusted Wikipedians was assembled, the last 10 days of every article's history were examined, and the last version edited by a white-listed Wikipedian was chosen for the DVD. If no such version existed, the last version older than 10 days was used. Articles nominated for cleanup or deletion were not used.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/22/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
You'd have to spend a whole lot of money to get human editors to pick the "useful articles". It might pay off in the really long term, but it'd require a huge investment. And due to the GFDL some other company could just come along and take the results of that huge investment and drive you out of business anyway. I'm not at all surprised no one is doing it.
They certainly didn't for de:. Oh, wait ...
- d.
You're referring to the producers of the DVD, I assume. I don't know a whole lot about that project but I assumed they used some automated method to select articles for inclusion (there was a mention of only using articles which were last edited by a certain selection of logged in users), not that they had someone go through each one by hand.
First two versions were hand-processed, last version was automated.
From your description it sounds like the work was done by Wikipedia
volunteers, and not the company that produced the DVD. So we've gotten pretty far off the topic of "Wikipedia mirrors such as Answers.com", but still very interesting information. I can't speak for all of en:, but I'm pretty jealous of those who can understand German.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
From your description it sounds like the work was done by Wikipedia volunteers, and not the company that produced the DVD. So we've gotten pretty far off the topic of "Wikipedia mirrors such as Answers.com", but still very interesting information. I can't speak for all of en:, but I'm pretty jealous of those who can understand German.
Now you get why I'm going on about the de: DVD and why I'm mentioning it in media interviews as the sort of thing the English version is aspiring to!
- d.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Instead of thinking of (the English) Wikipedia as a basket of 850,000 articles in their current version, we can think of it as a basket of X million article-versions. Every article-version in this collection of X million is free under GFDL, and can be used as the basis for new article-versions. Anybody can add new article-versions to the collection.
Oh, I *like* that.
Currently Wikipedia works under the assumption that the latest version of any article is the best one, and the only one that should be linked from other articles, shown to the public and indexed by search engines. It is important that we realize that this *is* an assumption, it does represent a design choice, and not necessarily the optimal one. If I'm compiling a Wikireader or a similar subset of articles, I might pick my article-versions under very different assumptions.
I agree.
I'm surprised that Wikipedia mirrors such as Answers.com don't work more like Wikireaders, where a human editor picks useful article-versions and leaves the stubs unmirrored. The added value from such an "editor's choice" would be a perfectly valid business model.
Indeed!
- d.
On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted, which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy, there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal, takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.
I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions, are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.
Ronline
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going against the principle of Wikipedia.
Articles are continuously edited over time. As time goes on, ever-newer versions will be marked as the stable version which is first shown to the public.
If that means "no-one could edit them", then we already have that model! You can't change a given revision on Wikipedia; you can only make a new revision based on it.
But even worse, today when we freeze an article to show a stable revision, *nobody* can edit it except an elite cabal of sysops. Is that "open"? Is that "free"?
Do you really think it's better for us to *forbid everybody* from editing pages instead of finally doing what we've talked about for years and *allowing everybody* to edit them and let the "first-glance" stable versions move forward to catch up after a review?
I say we *allow everybody* to edit. That means making the stable-version system that's been planned since 2002 but put off until the project matured more.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 12/21/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Articles are continuously edited over time. As time goes on, ever-newer versions will be marked as the stable version which is first shown to the public.
Yes, but only after lengthened amounts of consensus...
If that means "no-one could edit them", then we already have that model! You
can't change a given revision on Wikipedia; you can only make a new revision based on it.
But even worse, today when we freeze an article to show a stable revision, *nobody* can edit it except an elite cabal of sysops. Is that "open"? Is that "free"?
I haven't yet heard of anyone freezing an article to create a stable version. The concept of a stable version doesn't yet exist. Sure, FAs are semi-stable, and all edits to them are generally perused and checked, but that doesn't mean they're not full open. So that argument doesn't work - we *never* freeze an article today to show a stable version!
Magnus Manske wrote:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
And with stable versions, that would change how? (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
Magnus
Hoi, When implementing something like "stable versions" make no difference, if it means that people will still see the latest and greatest, what is the point of stable versions? And if people DO get the stable version and not the latest and greatest, how can you think it is a trick question.. or are you the trickster ? Thanks, GerardM
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Hi,
I was quite surprised to see today in the Wikipedia Signpost that the semi-protection policy had passed and I hadn't even heard a poll was conducted on it.
I think it's really important that everyone is notified in a much more organised manner about such important policy chances.
Now, the reason I'm writing here is because of the looming "stable versions" policy. I think this is a policy that contravenes the principles of Wikipedia, and I've raised this on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions) It would be great if other people could comment on this policy.
Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started. The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature. Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However, let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension the success, of Wikipedia.
At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring errors, etc.
Let's maintain Wikipedia's liberty!
One is often hard pressed to know what policy really is. Often it is nothing more than a few policy wonks agreeing to something on a page somewhere. As long as they attach the word "policy" and nobody objects they draw the conclusion that there is general approval. If you weren't aware that this was happening, too bad.
People obsessed with policy often tend to be very shortsighted, or they will draft policies to deal with obvious problems but without considering the effect of those policies on people who were never part of the problem. In other words policies designed to cope with a small minority are at the expense of the great majority.
Preventing anonymous users from writing new articles may have been fine as a short term solution, but we need to find better ways for long term solutions. There are too many ways around that short term solutions anyway. We do need to have versions of an article declared stable and documented, but not at the expense of preventing the wiki's natural growth.
Ec
On 12/20/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However, let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension the success, of Wikipedia.
It's my opinion that the success of the English Wikipedia depends on getting some controls in place. Too many of our articles are degrading in quality precisely because anybody can edit them.
At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring errors, etc.
What works for rowiki may not work for enwiki.
Remember, our goal here is to write an encyclopedia. Open editing is a tool that may or may not benefit that, and each language edition must make a decision whether or not to allow open editing. Wikipedia is absolutely not a free speech forum.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
It's my opinion that the success of the English Wikipedia depends on getting some controls in place. Too many of our articles are degrading in quality precisely because anybody can edit them.
Idea: en: should be envious of the fact that de: is good enough to be in its third DVD edtion, and do what we can to make it easy to do one ourselves!
- d.
On 22/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Idea: en: should be envious of the fact that de: is good enough to be in its third DVD edtion, and do what we can to make it easy to do one ourselves!
In case anyone's interested, [[German Wikipedia]] now has a description of the various DVD projects. Quite interesting.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 22/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Idea: en: should be envious of the fact that de: is good enough to be in its third DVD edtion, and do what we can to make it easy to do one ourselves!
In case anyone's interested, [[German Wikipedia]] now has a description of the various DVD projects. Quite interesting.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Good idea to provide this link. I added the information here in the news : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
And made a quick article on the issue for reference : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/German_DVD/Book_release_-_december_2005
ant
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org