On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
I won't comment on the financial aspect of this,
but I don't know if there
will be some sort of "stability" feature that will gain popularity - many
feel it's "unwiki" and goes against our principles. I just think it's
a
poor idea in general.
The unwikiness is the strongest objection.
I don't think it's unavoidable, either. Part
of the draw of Wikipedia is
that it's nearly always a live draft, and "stability" will only hurt that
portion of it.
Unfortunately, we're a top-10 website now, and most of the problems
that come with that are in fact from being a live working draft.
How about a
wikipedia.com with stable versions and ads, to pay for
educational programs for people who aren't comfortable and well-fed
first-world citizens? That'd be fun. (As far as I can tell, the
staunchest objectors to ads are comfortable and well-fed first-world
citizens.)
- d.