[Wikipedia-l] beta/stable ideas

[Guardian Tor]

This sounds like a trust metric, which the folks over at advogato.org are very fond of. There's some interesting ideas in this article: http://www.advogato.org/article/454.html

- Stephen Gilbert



----- Original Message -----
From: Axel Boldt <axel at uni-paderborn.de>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:17:39 +0200 (MET DST) 
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] beta/stable ideas

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
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l




________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
   http://www.wikipedia.com

    
-- 

Powered by Outblaze