It seems that for the stable version feature, there is much support for having a stable version, but not as much for displaying it by default.
Suggestion: 1. Have stable versions, but not as default, like on my test page [1] 2. Once that runs for some time without problem, we turn on stable versions as default *for a week* and see what happens
If the number of (non-vandal) edits drops like the new market used to, we keep it like #1. However, if there is no significant reduction in edits, we turn on #2 for, say, a month, or three month. If there's no ill effect either, we keep it on.
Additionally, of course, the decision to try this would be optional for every wikipedia individually.
That solution should satisfy everyone concerned about the project, though it might not satisfy those who want a wiki, just a wiki, nothing else.
Magnus
On 12/30/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
It seems that for the stable version feature, there is much support for having a stable version, but not as much for displaying it by default.
Yes, this seems to be the case, but I think we should have a poll on this on the Wikipedia itself, as visibly as possible, since at least #2 (and imho #1 too) would be a big change. Judging support just from the few participants in this discussion would give you an unreliable result.
Suggestion:
- Have stable versions, but not as default, like on my test page [1]
- Once that runs for some time without problem, we turn on stable
versions as default *for a week* and see what happens
If the number of (non-vandal) edits drops like the new market used to, we keep it like #1. However, if there is no significant reduction in edits, we turn on #2 for, say, a month, or three month. If there's no ill effect either, we keep it on.
Since this is a controversial issue, I think the idea of an experiment sounds nice. The details, however, need a few changes. After turning on #1, we could monitor the growth of edits, new users and the use of the stable versions for a few months. If there are negative changes to the growth pattern, we would step back to the current situation. Otherwise we could go on to try #2, and monitor the same things for a few months, and again step back if there are negative changes.
Additionally, of course, the decision to try this would be optional for every wikipedia individually.
A more long-term experiment would be to create a fork with the new policy, and see how that develops (en-stable.wikipedia.org, for example), but that would put the new proposal at an great disadvantage, since it would start out with almost no editors, so it would be very hard to get any useful results.
That solution should satisfy everyone concerned about the project, though it might not satisfy those who want a wiki, just a wiki, nothing else.
Personally, I want an encyclopedia (though in the inclusionist sense), but I think that the fastest and best way to build that is through the current wiki process.
Amaurea wrote:
On 12/30/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
It seems that for the stable version feature, there is much support for having a stable version, but not as much for displaying it by default.
Yes, this seems to be the case, but I think we should have a poll on this on the Wikipedia itself, as visibly as possible, since at least #2 (and imho #1 too) would be a big change. Judging support just from the few participants in this discussion would give you an unreliable result.
Not another poll! The problem with such a process is that it reveals a divided community, which, by virtue of the poll finds it harder to seek out a compromise solution.
I can live with either version as the first version to appear as long as the other option is made *clearly* available.
Ec
Yeah, definitely not a poll. We need to keep ironing out concensus, and if at some point in that process there are two irreconcilable alternative (I doubt that'll happen), only then should a poll be used. If you want more people involved, keep pointing them to [[Wikipedia:Stable versions]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Stable versions]].
On 12/30/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Amaurea wrote:
On 12/30/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
It seems that for the stable version feature, there is much support for having a stable version, but not as much for displaying it by default.
Yes, this seems to be the case, but I think we should have a poll on this on the Wikipedia itself, as visibly as possible, since at least #2 (and imho #1 too) would be a big change. Judging support just from the few participants in this discussion would give you an unreliable result.
Not another poll! The problem with such a process is that it reveals a divided community, which, by virtue of the poll finds it harder to seek out a compromise solution.
I can live with either version as the first version to appear as long as the other option is made *clearly* available.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 12/30/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Not another poll! The problem with such a process is that it reveals a divided community, which, by virtue of the poll finds it harder to seek out a compromise solution.
I can live with either version as the first version to appear as long as the other option is made *clearly* available.
Sure, finding a compromise, or convincing the other side, is fine, but at some point you're going to have to either implement something or not, and before you do that, how are you going to know what the consensus is without a poll? As I said, judging from the messages to this mailing list will not do, since only a miniscule fraction of Wikipedia's users read it.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org