On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Grease Monkee wrote:
Bryan Derksen If stable versions turns out to be a disaster for some reason it should
be perfectly straightforward to just turn it off again.
from User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles: Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. Great minds think alike :)
Stable versions _is_ reversible. Much more reversible than something like categories, which were implemented without much thought being given to their ultimate usage. If categories had been turned off again it would have left a bajillion useless red [[category:]] links everywhere.
Stable versions doesn't have to do anything visible if the default is for people to see the most recent version rather than the one marked stable. Enable it, let people noodle around figuring out the procedures for what to mark, and if after a while the resulting version marking looks good maybe then make it the default anon view.
The thing is, if stable versions don't have to do anything visible, then the developers don't have to implement anything in the first place. People can just stick a note on the talk page for an article saying "I declare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hey_Ya%21&oldid=156732871 version 156732871] to be stable" and other people can say "*I agree" or "*what are you high?" or whatever.
IMO much better as a 'test' than page protection and editable subpages, which sounds rather awkward as far as usability and GFDL compliance go.
I agree with you that that's an awkward hack. And I'm not sure there's much, if any, benefit. Would Seigenthaler have been less angry if that article had been at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr./unstable? I doubt it. But if it was at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&oldid..., on the other hand, I think it'd be more palatable.
Anthony