[Wikipedia-l] Regards marking article revisions as stable

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>My understanding is that "stable" is simply that. Not right, not
>>approved, but... stable. A non-vandalised version of the current
>>consensus on the article - you'll see the revisions from before
>>someone vandalised it, or before a violent edit war kicked off, as the
>>stable version, but it doesn't mean they need to have been
>>individually factchecked.
>>    
>>
>That's exactly my understanding too. It would be good if using the
>same system an article could be marked as "fact checked". We could
>come up with a system for experts in the field to read the article and
>agree that it is factually correct. I think we should implement such a
>system for featured articles (existing ones, not candidates - this
>isn't intended as another hoop to jump through to become a FA) at the
>very least. It doesn't need to wait for the software to know how to do
>it, a system using templates should be fine.
>
Most discussion about "stable" versions has indeed been in the 
anti-vandalism context, but I would personally like to see the feature 
work a lot harder than that.  As the saying goes, "You must learn to 
walk before you can run," so I will be happy to see anything functional 
in this area.  Hopefully it can be taken further after that.  Getting 
something like this going would be a great substitute for the rude 
behaviour that one often encounters.

Ec