Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This smells familiar...sort of like WP:STABLE. A merge might be necessary. Johnleemk | Talk 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I described my idea for a stable version here. I emailed Jimbo asking what he thought, and he rather liked the idea. I believe Worldtraveller's description here is almost identical to my own. Raul654 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, my follow up - http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5290 Raul654 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it, an editable stable version with approved editors could well be an excellent thing but would be a fork, unavoidably. I think it would be better to lobby here for the much stricter conduct policies. I always thought Wikipedia's attitude that even the most disruptive editor could be persuaded to be productive was a great strength that helped to generate substantial editor numbers, but now the project has, surely, the critical mass of editors it needs and there is no longer a need to be so tolerant of disruptive behaviour.
But a non-editable stable version could also eliminate the problems you describe. If the stable version is the 'finished' product, visible to the public, while the wiki continues to be the 'development' stage, that would take away an enormous amount of incentive to vandalise, edit-war, troll, etc etc. If edit warring is only over a work in progress rather than a perceived final product, it begins to seem rather pointless. Why bother vandalising an article if it's not even visible to the public? I think instead there would be a far greater incentive for serious editors to collaborate and actually produce 'finished' articles of high quality. Of course, initially there would be few finished articles and the 'development' articles would all need to still be visible. Worldtraveller 11:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think any stable/static version proposal must address the following issues:
1) Is only one version seen by the general browsing public, and if so, which one?
I'm not sure if it's the general consensus, but I think the answer to this has to be only one and the appropriate one is the stable/static version. Having two "wikipedia" articles on the same topic, both visible to the general public (presumably both indexed by google) seems like a nightmare to me. In addition to eliminating the confusion factor, I strongly suspect exposing only the stable/static version would greatly reduce the motivation to vandalize. What's the point of vandalizing if your efforts are not immediately visible?
2) Who picks stable/static versions?
The Stable versions proposal suggests a consensus process managed by administrators for each stable/static version. Raul's suggestion is "administrator decides". My suggestion is a new class of user, designated by admins, decides. I strongly suspect any kind of consensus mechanism would not scale well (and would lead to stable/static versions effectively becoming permanent). I object to "administrator decides" on the grounds that administrators have never had any particular authority over content, and I'm not convinced that it would scale sufficiently either.
3) How are stable/static versions updated?
Stable versions suggests a perpetually parallel fork with (I think) both some set of privileged editors able to directly change the stable/static version and the ability to pick a new stable/static version from the "open" version. Raul's suggestion (and mine) is that the stable/static version is always simply one of the "open" versions (whether it's an actual copy or just a marker in the database).
4) Can people browsing the stable/static version easily edit the corresponding open version and, if so, how?
My interpretation of Stable versions is that the answer is no. There might be a link to the open version from the stable/static version, but it would effectively be like viewing a Wikipedia article at answers.com and clicking a link to get to the open version. Note that the more impedance there is to updating the stable/static version, the more likely the open version will become significantly different. IMO, I think this means the stable/static version should be as easily updatable as possible. It's not obvious to me how any mechanism that results in the stable/static version being at a different URL than the open version can preserve the ability to easily edit the open version. IMO, the goal is not to prevent edits but to provide some mechanism to make sure the edits are reasonble.
-- Rick Block ( talk) 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I missed a couple:
5) How often do we want stable/static articles to be updated?
IMO, nearly continuously. I don't think the goal is to have articles that we put on the shelf that remain unchanged for months and months, but rather articles for which any changes have to be made and/or vetted by someone at least slightly more responsible than anyone with a web browser. If we have a stable/static article on a living person who dies, I'd expect the visible article (which it sounds like we're all saying should be the stable/static one) to be updated the very next day (not 3 months from now). I think this implies the working version and the stable/static version cannot be allowed to drift very far apart. If we can't keep up in a continuous sense with changes to the working versions, the number of such changes will grow unbounded (basic queuing theory).
6) How does an article get its first stable/static version, with the related issue of how many articles do we want to have stable/static versions?
I think there are basically two choices: something like WP:FA (which, as Worldtraveller has observed, runs at the rate of about 1 per day), or something like WP:GA. I'd think our target would be something in the neighborhood of 100,000 articles (see Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics) which I think means we can't use WP:FA.
-- Rick Block ( talk) 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in face-to-face discussions as the only real way to resolve old chestnuts like making Wikipedia articles more reliable. I think that stability is only one of several issues associated with validation (defined as "knowing an article is accurate"), and we need to develop an overall strategy to address all of these together, not separately (though any separate solutions are, of course, welcome!). I am involved with organising a discussion on validation issues at Wikimania 2006 in August, that may be of interest to folks watching this page. It's 45 minutes long, and the title is "Validation on Wikipedia: How do I know this article is accurate." The following is part of my submission:
<blockquote;>The aim of the discussion will be to develop a workable method for article validation on Wikipedia. The discussion leader will initiate the discussion by briefly outlining the problem and describing some possible solutions. These will include review by subject experts (an elected panel, respected WikiProject members and/or outside reviewers), and the creation of validated versions (or “ blessed editions”) of articles, possibly in their own “validated article” namespace. After the discussion a proposal will be placed on Wikipedia representing the consensus reached, and participants will be encouraged to refine the proposal further. (Links added here to help the reader)</blockquote;>
Developing stable/static versions of articles is an important part of this debate. Of course, if consensus has been reached here on the issue over the next 3 months, that will help shape the discussion. I hope folks interested in these issues can attend the meeting in Boston in August and contribute. Walkerma 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Some form of static version seems to be regarded as a reasonably good idea. There doesn't seem, though, to be any kind of momentum and enthusiasm for pushing it forward. Walkerma's talk in Boston may encourage more movement on this, but any thoughts in the meantime? Worldtraveller 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this proposal should not be implemented, for one reason: even featured articles require updating. For example, Microsoft is a featured article. Microsoft will make notable releases of new products periodically, and we must update the article to reflect the release.
Instead, I think that all featured articles should be semi-protected. This will prevent most of the vandalism - from new and unregistered users - while allowing established users to update the article.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I want to get a list of articles, one per line, from Category:Wikipedia CD Selection.
I have done it by saving the HTML from the category pages (it stretches to about 12 pages, 200 per). I then plan on using mwdumper against a recent XML dump, with this list as a parameter. I will then fill in the images, and convert it to plucker format for use on a PDA or CD. If I can easily automate this, I can create regular snapshots, as articles get added. Wizzy… ☎ 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea, esp for articles which have reached that age where any new changes might just as well go on a detail page. Honestly, hundreds or thousands of pages could stand to be "protected" esp if they were the "main" pages and detail pages were not protected. However, this all inks directly into a different problem. Wikipedia doesn't seem to currently have a direct classification system of main article, primary detail article, sub detail article, and sub sub detail article. Articles need to be classified like that in order to make something like "stable" or "static" reasonable. Also, just in order for organization and order to be sane, and as a navigational aid. Prometheuspan 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly use of the page protection feature already performs this function.
I think it's important to recognise that discussion of protected articles is the main basis for the creation of a 'static' version of wikipedia.
Discussion of protected articles is what 'Wikipedia static' should primarily be about, rather than a 'static' version of wikipedia. We should not fool ourselves by ever calling wikipedia 'static', or any other encyplopedia for that matter.
An encyclopedia is never static, the suggested title is an oxymoron. For that matter, neither are they ever really stable, as the world changes daily, although the degree of stability of fields of knowlege vary and perhaps, degree of content stability is something that should be a feature of each article, perhaps as a rating?
Also I think this proposal is an opportunity to refine the process for mediation of POV disputes. Perhaps POV disputes should be its focus? Supposed 02:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This smells familiar...sort of like WP:STABLE. A merge might be necessary. Johnleemk | Talk 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I described my idea for a stable version here. I emailed Jimbo asking what he thought, and he rather liked the idea. I believe Worldtraveller's description here is almost identical to my own. Raul654 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, my follow up - http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5290 Raul654 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it, an editable stable version with approved editors could well be an excellent thing but would be a fork, unavoidably. I think it would be better to lobby here for the much stricter conduct policies. I always thought Wikipedia's attitude that even the most disruptive editor could be persuaded to be productive was a great strength that helped to generate substantial editor numbers, but now the project has, surely, the critical mass of editors it needs and there is no longer a need to be so tolerant of disruptive behaviour.
But a non-editable stable version could also eliminate the problems you describe. If the stable version is the 'finished' product, visible to the public, while the wiki continues to be the 'development' stage, that would take away an enormous amount of incentive to vandalise, edit-war, troll, etc etc. If edit warring is only over a work in progress rather than a perceived final product, it begins to seem rather pointless. Why bother vandalising an article if it's not even visible to the public? I think instead there would be a far greater incentive for serious editors to collaborate and actually produce 'finished' articles of high quality. Of course, initially there would be few finished articles and the 'development' articles would all need to still be visible. Worldtraveller 11:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think any stable/static version proposal must address the following issues:
1) Is only one version seen by the general browsing public, and if so, which one?
I'm not sure if it's the general consensus, but I think the answer to this has to be only one and the appropriate one is the stable/static version. Having two "wikipedia" articles on the same topic, both visible to the general public (presumably both indexed by google) seems like a nightmare to me. In addition to eliminating the confusion factor, I strongly suspect exposing only the stable/static version would greatly reduce the motivation to vandalize. What's the point of vandalizing if your efforts are not immediately visible?
2) Who picks stable/static versions?
The Stable versions proposal suggests a consensus process managed by administrators for each stable/static version. Raul's suggestion is "administrator decides". My suggestion is a new class of user, designated by admins, decides. I strongly suspect any kind of consensus mechanism would not scale well (and would lead to stable/static versions effectively becoming permanent). I object to "administrator decides" on the grounds that administrators have never had any particular authority over content, and I'm not convinced that it would scale sufficiently either.
3) How are stable/static versions updated?
Stable versions suggests a perpetually parallel fork with (I think) both some set of privileged editors able to directly change the stable/static version and the ability to pick a new stable/static version from the "open" version. Raul's suggestion (and mine) is that the stable/static version is always simply one of the "open" versions (whether it's an actual copy or just a marker in the database).
4) Can people browsing the stable/static version easily edit the corresponding open version and, if so, how?
My interpretation of Stable versions is that the answer is no. There might be a link to the open version from the stable/static version, but it would effectively be like viewing a Wikipedia article at answers.com and clicking a link to get to the open version. Note that the more impedance there is to updating the stable/static version, the more likely the open version will become significantly different. IMO, I think this means the stable/static version should be as easily updatable as possible. It's not obvious to me how any mechanism that results in the stable/static version being at a different URL than the open version can preserve the ability to easily edit the open version. IMO, the goal is not to prevent edits but to provide some mechanism to make sure the edits are reasonble.
-- Rick Block ( talk) 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I missed a couple:
5) How often do we want stable/static articles to be updated?
IMO, nearly continuously. I don't think the goal is to have articles that we put on the shelf that remain unchanged for months and months, but rather articles for which any changes have to be made and/or vetted by someone at least slightly more responsible than anyone with a web browser. If we have a stable/static article on a living person who dies, I'd expect the visible article (which it sounds like we're all saying should be the stable/static one) to be updated the very next day (not 3 months from now). I think this implies the working version and the stable/static version cannot be allowed to drift very far apart. If we can't keep up in a continuous sense with changes to the working versions, the number of such changes will grow unbounded (basic queuing theory).
6) How does an article get its first stable/static version, with the related issue of how many articles do we want to have stable/static versions?
I think there are basically two choices: something like WP:FA (which, as Worldtraveller has observed, runs at the rate of about 1 per day), or something like WP:GA. I'd think our target would be something in the neighborhood of 100,000 articles (see Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics) which I think means we can't use WP:FA.
-- Rick Block ( talk) 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in face-to-face discussions as the only real way to resolve old chestnuts like making Wikipedia articles more reliable. I think that stability is only one of several issues associated with validation (defined as "knowing an article is accurate"), and we need to develop an overall strategy to address all of these together, not separately (though any separate solutions are, of course, welcome!). I am involved with organising a discussion on validation issues at Wikimania 2006 in August, that may be of interest to folks watching this page. It's 45 minutes long, and the title is "Validation on Wikipedia: How do I know this article is accurate." The following is part of my submission:
<blockquote;>The aim of the discussion will be to develop a workable method for article validation on Wikipedia. The discussion leader will initiate the discussion by briefly outlining the problem and describing some possible solutions. These will include review by subject experts (an elected panel, respected WikiProject members and/or outside reviewers), and the creation of validated versions (or “ blessed editions”) of articles, possibly in their own “validated article” namespace. After the discussion a proposal will be placed on Wikipedia representing the consensus reached, and participants will be encouraged to refine the proposal further. (Links added here to help the reader)</blockquote;>
Developing stable/static versions of articles is an important part of this debate. Of course, if consensus has been reached here on the issue over the next 3 months, that will help shape the discussion. I hope folks interested in these issues can attend the meeting in Boston in August and contribute. Walkerma 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Some form of static version seems to be regarded as a reasonably good idea. There doesn't seem, though, to be any kind of momentum and enthusiasm for pushing it forward. Walkerma's talk in Boston may encourage more movement on this, but any thoughts in the meantime? Worldtraveller 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this proposal should not be implemented, for one reason: even featured articles require updating. For example, Microsoft is a featured article. Microsoft will make notable releases of new products periodically, and we must update the article to reflect the release.
Instead, I think that all featured articles should be semi-protected. This will prevent most of the vandalism - from new and unregistered users - while allowing established users to update the article.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I want to get a list of articles, one per line, from Category:Wikipedia CD Selection.
I have done it by saving the HTML from the category pages (it stretches to about 12 pages, 200 per). I then plan on using mwdumper against a recent XML dump, with this list as a parameter. I will then fill in the images, and convert it to plucker format for use on a PDA or CD. If I can easily automate this, I can create regular snapshots, as articles get added. Wizzy… ☎ 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea, esp for articles which have reached that age where any new changes might just as well go on a detail page. Honestly, hundreds or thousands of pages could stand to be "protected" esp if they were the "main" pages and detail pages were not protected. However, this all inks directly into a different problem. Wikipedia doesn't seem to currently have a direct classification system of main article, primary detail article, sub detail article, and sub sub detail article. Articles need to be classified like that in order to make something like "stable" or "static" reasonable. Also, just in order for organization and order to be sane, and as a navigational aid. Prometheuspan 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly use of the page protection feature already performs this function.
I think it's important to recognise that discussion of protected articles is the main basis for the creation of a 'static' version of wikipedia.
Discussion of protected articles is what 'Wikipedia static' should primarily be about, rather than a 'static' version of wikipedia. We should not fool ourselves by ever calling wikipedia 'static', or any other encyplopedia for that matter.
An encyclopedia is never static, the suggested title is an oxymoron. For that matter, neither are they ever really stable, as the world changes daily, although the degree of stability of fields of knowlege vary and perhaps, degree of content stability is something that should be a feature of each article, perhaps as a rating?
Also I think this proposal is an opportunity to refine the process for mediation of POV disputes. Perhaps POV disputes should be its focus? Supposed 02:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)