Re: Stable versions policy
TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます
Wikipedia Ombudsman
Michael Snow
Daniel Mayer wrote:
So showing stable versions by default will *kill* one of the best aspects of Wikipedia; its ability to record history as it happens. It will also encourage needless forking of articles with stable versions whenever its subject is in the news. Not because doing that is best for covering the subject, but *only* to be able to report on the current events (no stable version = live version is displayed).
How would marking a revision as stable cause a fork of an article when the subject comes up in the news? Editing would still be done from the latest revision. For that matter, it should be standard practice to unflag the stable version if current events make it too obsolete. And if there is no stable version (for most of our articles at present, there shouldn't be), then everyone gets the editable version by default regardless.
For these reasons and others, I am **EXTREMELY** against hiding the live version behind stable ones on Wikipedia. If that is what they want, then there will be plenty of mirrors that will only display stable versions of our articles. Or they could simply choose to view stable versions by default; either by clicking on a 'View stable version of this article' link for selected articles or logging in and setting their preferences for that.
Trying to twist the arms of casual readers into doing any of this is a fool's errand. If they're on Wikipedia already, they're not going to do the work to figure out which sites mirror our stable versions (as opposed to outdated unstable versions) and navigate to those sites. And using low-quality content to try and lure people to sign in for the better stuff is one of the mistakes that turned AOL into the butt of so many jokes. --Michael Snow
Daniel Mayer
29 Dec 29 Dec
New subject: Stable versions policy
--- Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
How would marking a revision as stable cause a fork of an article when the subject comes up in the news? Editing would still be done from the latest revision.
Because all those updates would be hidden behind the stable version. Thus a new article would be created that dealt just with that event so it can be linked from the Main Page and current events. No stable version = development version displayed.
For that matter, it should be standard practice to unflag the stable version if current events make it too obsolete.
It is not practical to expect we'd be able to adequately vette new versions fast enough to keep up.
Trying to twist the arms of casual readers into doing any of this is a fool's errand. If they're on Wikipedia already, they're not going to do the work to figure out which sites mirror our stable versions (as opposed to outdated unstable versions) and navigate to those sites.
If they want a stable version, all they need to do is click on the big fat notice at the top of the article that points them there. Once there, they should be able to set a cookie that remembered their preference to see stable versions by default. The point, however, is that Wikipedia is where content is created. That is what makes us fundamentally different from our mirrors. Mirrors display a static version of our content with a link to the development version on Wikipedia. Us doing the *exact* same thing makes little sense. Being up to date is what makes us different from the mirrors. All we need to do is make sure what we do display by default does not have obvious vandalism in it. Everything else will be links to selected older versions that have been validated for accuracy, bias, completeness and readability (sic: Stable).
using low-quality content to try and lure people to sign in for the better stuff is one of the mistakes that turned AOL into the butt of so many jokes.
Most up to date versions are most certainly not going to be the lower quality version by any stretch. True, that happens sometimes, but that is not the general rule. But hiding the development version in a dark closet will not tend to make that version improve over time. Sunlight is the best medicine. Since stable versions are just that, static, they don't need medicine. -- mav __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Magnus Manske
One could argue that if there are current events that lead to drastic changes to an article, * the stable version can be "unset", thus displaying the current version again. Reason: The old stable version is obviuosly outdated :-) * a page could be set to a "current events" or "live" mode individually, similar to the soft protection tag. This could overrule any stable version for the time being. That would need a (minor) software change, though. Magnus
Bryan Derksen
Magnus Manske wrote:
One could argue that if there are current events that lead to drastic changes to an article, * the stable version can be "unset", thus displaying the current version again. Reason: The old stable version is obviuosly outdated :-) * a page could be set to a "current events" or "live" mode individually, similar to the soft protection tag. This could overrule any stable version for the time being. That would need a (minor) software change, though.
And one could then also argue that these features would do away with the basis on which people are arguing for showing the "stable" version by default - random passers-by would once again be exposed to the raw underbelly of Wikipedia with no reassurance that there's no vandalism, lies, libel, etc in what they're seeing. We would no doubt have had news of our "stable by default" policy spread far and wide in the media by that point so this could make the situation even worse, since visitors would now be expecting to see only vetted content when they click a Wikipedia link (moreso than they already do, that is). I really think the best solution is just better education for passers-by of how Wikipedia works - more obvious disclaimers, "this is a work in progress" banners, etc. Ideally, stuff that would entice them to contribute themselves when they see problems.
Ben Yates
But passers-by will always be exposed to the underbelly: there's no way every single article in the wiki could have a stable , agreed-on version. The top 5% of articles, sure (and those articles will command disproportionate traffic), but The solution is to have a really, really good interface that makes it absolutely clear that (1) the version they're seeing is dynamic, and (2) there's also a stable version, a click away. On 12/29/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
And one could then also argue that these features would do away with the basis on which people are arguing for showing the "stable" version by default - random passers-by would once again be exposed to the raw underbelly of Wikipedia with no reassurance that there's no vandalism, lies, libel, etc in what they're seeing. We would no doubt have had news of our "stable by default" policy spread far and wide in the media by that point so this could make the situation even worse, since visitors would now be expecting to see only vetted content when they click a Wikipedia link (moreso than they already do, that is). I really think the best solution is just better education for passers-by of how Wikipedia works - more obvious disclaimers, "this is a work in progress" banners, etc. Ideally, stuff that would entice them to contribute themselves when they see problems. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Ben Yates wrote:
But passers-by will always be exposed to the underbelly: there's no way every single article in the wiki could have a stable , agreed-on version. The top 5% of articles, sure (and those articles will command disproportionate traffic), but The solution is to have a really, really good interface that makes it absolutely clear that (1) the version they're seeing is dynamic, and (2) there's also a stable version, a click away.
Oh, I agree; I'd love to see something like this. The thing I've been arguing about is setting it up the other way around so that the default version they're seeing is stable and that the dynamic version is a click away.
Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Bryan Derksen wrote: <snip>
I really think the best solution is just better education for passers-by of how Wikipedia works - more obvious disclaimers, "this is a work in progress" banners, etc. Ideally, stuff that would entice them to contribute themselves when they see problems.
I agree. Looking at the traffic on helpdesk-l (and ignoring the spam/misguided "can I enrol in your university"/"where can I buy XYZ" stuff), the types of enquiries have been shifting from "your site has been hacked!" to "this article has been vandalised but I don't know what to do" (and sadly, "If you don't take down my copyrighted material I WILL SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY"). A number of solutions come to mind: 1. Change the bit of [[Mediawiki:]] text to say "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (as someone did a few weeks ago) 2. Have stable versions displaying by default 3. I'm out of ideas. The "stable versions" point brings me to something else: people have been complaining "The article has been vandalised but it looks OK on the edit page". Is anon caching making us look worse than we really are? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Jake Nelson
I'm starting to think, more and more, that a "reader mode" and an "editor mode" separation would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Basically: If not logged in as a user, people see the "reader mode" view- less edit-specific stuff on the page. (The interface really is a bit daunting for people just trying to read articles.) Probably wouldn't display red links, no section-edit links, etc. Still keep the "edit this page" link, which prompts for login, then sends on to edit of that page... the "reader mode" would display stable by default with a prominent link to the current "draft" version (I really like that suggestion of calling it a "draft"- it's exactly the right description.). I could see a change in the format of Image: pages for this, too- they look a bit... internal right now, and throw some people off. If logged in, they get "editor mode" view, the full thing. They'd see current version by default. (Though user-preferences should allow them to switch that back, of course.) Of course, the second organization taking care of Wikipedia publication idea is a very good one as well. In that case, they'd handle "reader mode" for the most part, and core-Wikipedia would be pretty much strictly an editing project. -- Jake Nelson
Jake Nelson wrote:
I'm starting to think, more and more, that a "reader mode" and an "editor mode" separation would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Basically: If not logged in as a user, people see the "reader mode" view- less edit-specific stuff on the page. (The interface really is a bit daunting for people just trying to read articles.) Probably wouldn't display red links, no section-edit links, etc. Still keep the "edit this page" link, which prompts for login, then sends on to edit of that page... the "reader mode" would display stable by default with a prominent link to the current "draft" version (I really like that suggestion of calling it a "draft"- it's exactly the right description.). I could see a change in the format of Image: pages for this, too- they look a bit... internal right now, and throw some people off. If logged in, they get "editor mode" view, the full thing. They'd see current version by default. (Though user-preferences should allow them to switch that back, of course.)
# '''Support''' ~~~~
Of course, the second organization taking care of Wikipedia publication idea is a very good one as well. In that case, they'd handle "reader mode" for the most part, and core-Wikipedia would be pretty much strictly an editing project.
Yeah, helpdesk-l has had quite a few "where can I get a book/CD/DVD/Palm version of your content?" emails... -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Pawe³ Dembowski
> If logged in, they get "editor mode" view, the full thing. They'd see > current version by default. (Though user-preferences should allow them > to switch that back, of course.) >
# '''Oppose''' - it's through the red links that people often get hooked on editing Wikipedia ~~~~ -- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org
Brion Vibber
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Yeah, helpdesk-l has had quite a few "where can I get a book/CD/DVD/Palm version of your content?" emails...
Step 1: Learn German Step 2: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3866400012 Step 3: :D For 'hardcopy' (DVDs, books, etc) outsourcing this makes sense, and that's what we do now. Anybody who wants to put in the effort and money to publish that kind of stuff can do so, and there's some great folks in Germany doing just that, and giving back by supporting Wikimedia. For the web, things are a bit different. Our own web site is out there in the public eye, seen as the authoritative version, way up in page rank, etc. So it's up to us to take at least some minimum measures to make sure we're serving the public. That'll mean making more effort to mark things as changing, recently changed, unreviewed, etc, and if we have stable/reviewed content making it reeeeeal easy to see (preferably by default for the random visitor, with the latest updates a click away). -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
A number of solutions come to mind: 1. Change the bit of [[Mediawiki:]] text to say "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (as someone did a few weeks ago) 2. Have stable versions displaying by default
Arg. This solution is exactly what I've been arguing _against_. :) I like the idea of stable versions but I hate the idea of stable versions being shown by default. I think showing stable versions by default will cut off much of the influx of new editors since the "working" Wikipedia will be hidden from view, and it's something that is better done by our multitudinous mirrors anyway.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
That's *not* done better by mirrors. It's not done *at all* by mirrors. Mirrors are totally irrelevant; what we need is to keep the random penises, libel, etc off of the front page. The front page, for the most part, is going to be whatever article people arrived at from a search engine, as visible on http://*.wikipedia.org. Mirrors are their own affair; we've got our own butts to cover. Unless you want us to take *.wikipedia.org out of the web's search engines (a simple change to robots.txt can do this), we need to recognize that we serve the public and provide an appropriate initial view for random visitors. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org