Wikipedia talk:Stable versions proposal/storing

message: ===Separate site===
===Subpage===
===Different namespace===
==== Coda proposal ====
I agree that we need a mechanism to maintain the quality of articles that have undergone review. At the same time I think one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that articles are always subject to revision. I think there is a way to have both.  I propose a Coda namespace, with entries that would be associated with every "released" article. The coda content would be displayed at the end of the article (perhaps a user-selectable preference).  While the article would be frozen, the coda would be fully editable and subject to all the Wikipedia policies that apply to articles (as opposed to talk pages). The coda could share the talk page with the released article, but have it's own history.
The coda might include the following sections:
Errata 
This would be a place to list clear errors in the released article: spelling, typos,  incorrect dates, broken Wiki and reference links, etc.
Additional see also and Additional external links
New articles come along, old ones are merged or have their names changed, and, of course, external links are always breaking.  The coda would be the place to fix things. An even better alternative might be to have each  article's  See also and External links be placed in the coda when the article is released, instead of in the frozen article body. There they could continue to be maintained and evolve.
Subsequent developments
Stuff like:
*"The author died in a kiln explosion on March 4, 2007.
*"The play was made into a full length motion picture starring Dustin Hoffman and Angelina Jolie"
*"The former president was convicted on drug trafficking charges in 2009 and will be eligible for parole in 2018."
Additional points of view or  Controversy
Places where the debate can continue, again, subject to normal policy (limited space for crackpot views, NPOV presentation, etc.)
Other coda  material might include new images from Wikicommon, pointers to Wikisource and, perhaps new sections amplifying point in the article.
Periodically the article might be revised to incorporate material from the coda.  The incorporation of errata would require a simpler review, after which the errata section of the coda would be cleared, but the rest of the coda would remain intact.  We might use software style numbering, e.g. Rev 1.02 might be the second update that just included errata. A full update (Rev 2.0) would be expected to deal with all material in the coda, at least as of some cutoff date. A template in the coda could announce that a revision was in the works and point people to the update under development.
I believe this coda proposal would require only modest Wikimedia changes and would go a long way toward letting us have our cake and eat it too. --agr 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting idea that of course is known to work quite well for static things, but to me it seems a bit silly that any article we post should contain known errors, when this is a web page and they should be easy to fix. I would say that things like additional see also/external links, subsequent developments, and additional POVs are quite reasonable to reserve for a new version, but simple errata and broken links should be fixed more quickly. Deco 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The "published" article should still be open to edits by a select number of authors.The edits they may make should be very small like spelling and small structural improvement.
Any small factual chance(like a date or number) should be made very clearly in the edit summary and the talk-page.
Limiting it in this way should make it managable to patrol these "published" versions.
Bigger chances that are needed because of emergencies like grave errors that came to light or an large development concerning the topic should be dealt with something similar to speedy deletion.In this case it would be an emergency review + correction (somewhat like Featured article review,but a bit faster).A template in this case should placed on the article of course.--Technosphere83 13:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Intuitively, it seems like we would want to show the stable version by default. The theory is that the stable version is more reliable and so better suited for public use. However, by making the working version less prominent to readers, we may discourage editors who are motivated by exposure and efficacy. It's a difficult balance. I'm not sure. Deco 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like this for several reasons, but primarily that it's a no downside plan. Having a tab or some other brilliant idea for acsessing the stable version would allow those that want that to have it and those that don't to get the wiki. I think frozen version being accessible at something like http://en.wikipedia.org/Richard Feynman would be great. Having this frozen version available would allow quickly validating the worth of this idea. My belief is that you would very quickly see people going to that as the destination if they are wanting to actually use the information, and then going to the wiki if they want to fix something. Of course as I've said above also having an editable, though stable, branch has even more advantages. But having the wiki version the default for now is clearly the lower risk, and lower shock way to change. - Taxman Talk 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm compelled to agree for the reasons stated. But there should at least be a user preference to view stable versions by default. Deco 05:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having a tab to see the stable version, and a user preference to view stable versions by default.   Kevin baas 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: ==== Coda proposal ====
I agree that we need a mechanism to maintain the quality of articles that have undergone review. At the same time I think one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that articles are always subject to revision. I think there is a way to have both.  I propose a Coda namespace, with entries that would be associated with every "released" article. The coda content would be displayed at the end of the article (perhaps a user-selectable preference).  While the article would be frozen, the coda would be fully editable and subject to all the Wikipedia policies that apply to articles (as opposed to talk pages). The coda could share the talk page with the released article, but have it's own history.
The coda might include the following sections:
Errata 
This would be a place to list clear errors in the released article: spelling, typos,  incorrect dates, broken Wiki and reference links, etc.
Additional see also and Additional external links
New articles come along, old ones are merged or have their names changed, and, of course, external links are always breaking.  The coda would be the place to fix things. An even better alternative might be to have each  article's  See also and External links be placed in the coda when the article is released, instead of in the frozen article body. There they could continue to be maintained and evolve.
Subsequent developments
Stuff like:
*"The author died in a kiln explosion on March 4, 2007.
*"The play was made into a full length motion picture starring Dustin Hoffman and Angelina Jolie"
*"The former president was convicted on drug trafficking charges in 2009 and will be eligible for parole in 2018."
Additional points of view or  Controversy
Places where the debate can continue, again, subject to normal policy (limited space for crackpot views, NPOV presentation, etc.)
Other coda  material might include new images from Wikicommon, pointers to Wikisource and, perhaps new sections amplifying point in the article.
Periodically the article might be revised to incorporate material from the coda.  The incorporation of errata would require a simpler review, after which the errata section of the coda would be cleared, but the rest of the coda would remain intact.  We might use software style numbering, e.g. Rev 1.02 might be the second update that just included errata. A full update (Rev 2.0) would be expected to deal with all material in the coda, at least as of some cutoff date. A template in the coda could announce that a revision was in the works and point people to the update under development.
I believe this coda proposal would require only modest Wikimedia changes and would go a long way toward letting us have our cake and eat it too. --agr 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting idea that of course is known to work quite well for static things, but to me it seems a bit silly that any article we post should contain known errors, when this is a web page and they should be easy to fix. I would say that things like additional see also/external links, subsequent developments, and additional POVs are quite reasonable to reserve for a new version, but simple errata and broken links should be fixed more quickly. Deco 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The "published" article should still be open to edits by a select number of authors.The edits they may make should be very small like spelling and small structural improvement.
Any small factual chance(like a date or number) should be made very clearly in the edit summary and the talk-page.
Limiting it in this way should make it managable to patrol these "published" versions.
Bigger chances that are needed because of emergencies like grave errors that came to light or an large development concerning the topic should be dealt with something similar to speedy deletion.In this case it would be an emergency review + correction (somewhat like Featured article review,but a bit faster).A template in this case should placed on the article of course.--Technosphere83 13:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different namespace

message: I agree that we need a mechanism to maintain the quality of articles that have undergone review. At the same time I think one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that articles are always subject to revision. I think there is a way to have both.  I propose a Coda namespace, with entries that would be associated with every "released" article. The coda content would be displayed at the end of the article (perhaps a user-selectable preference).  While the article would be frozen, the coda would be fully editable and subject to all the Wikipedia policies that apply to articles (as opposed to talk pages). The coda could share the talk page with the released article, but have it's own history.
The coda might include the following sections:
Errata 
This would be a place to list clear errors in the released article: spelling, typos,  incorrect dates, broken Wiki and reference links, etc.
Additional see also and Additional external links
New articles come along, old ones are merged or have their names changed, and, of course, external links are always breaking.  The coda would be the place to fix things. An even better alternative might be to have each  article's  See also and External links be placed in the coda when the article is released, instead of in the frozen article body. There they could continue to be maintained and evolve.
Subsequent developments
Stuff like:
*"The author died in a kiln explosion on March 4, 2007.
*"The play was made into a full length motion picture starring Dustin Hoffman and Angelina Jolie"
*"The former president was convicted on drug trafficking charges in 2009 and will be eligible for parole in 2018."
Additional points of view or  Controversy
Places where the debate can continue, again, subject to normal policy (limited space for crackpot views, NPOV presentation, etc.)
Other coda  material might include new images from Wikicommon, pointers to Wikisource and, perhaps new sections amplifying point in the article.
Periodically the article might be revised to incorporate material from the coda.  The incorporation of errata would require a simpler review, after which the errata section of the coda would be cleared, but the rest of the coda would remain intact.  We might use software style numbering, e.g. Rev 1.02 might be the second update that just included errata. A full update (Rev 2.0) would be expected to deal with all material in the coda, at least as of some cutoff date. A template in the coda could announce that a revision was in the works and point people to the update under development.
I believe this coda proposal would require only modest Wikimedia changes and would go a long way toward letting us have our cake and eat it too. --agr 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting idea that of course is known to work quite well for static things, but to me it seems a bit silly that any article we post should contain known errors, when this is a web page and they should be easy to fix. I would say that things like additional see also/external links, subsequent developments, and additional POVs are quite reasonable to reserve for a new version, but simple errata and broken links should be fixed more quickly. Deco 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The "published" article should still be open to edits by a select number of authors.The edits they may make should be very small like spelling and small structural improvement.
Any small factual chance(like a date or number) should be made very clearly in the edit summary and the talk-page.
Limiting it in this way should make it managable to patrol these "published" versions.
Bigger chances that are needed because of emergencies like grave errors that came to light or an large development concerning the topic should be dealt with something similar to speedy deletion.In this case it would be an emergency review + correction (somewhat like Featured article review,but a bit faster).A template in this case should placed on the article of course.--Technosphere83 13:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coda proposal 

message: User flips a binary switch on the wiki, between development mode (unstable) and release mode (stable).
====What version will users see first?====
Will they see the stable version?  The dynamic version?  Both at once?  How will the interface notify them that another version exists?  Will logged-in users see the dynamic version while logged-out ones see the stable version?
Also, who's designing the new interface?  It's really important that everything work well, be usability-tested first, etc.  I'm sure a lot of top-flight designers would be willing to go pro-bono for the publicity.  It would be cool if you could get Zeldman, for example. Tlogmer 17:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Intuitively, it seems like we would want to show the stable version by default. The theory is that the stable version is more reliable and so better suited for public use. However, by making the working version less prominent to readers, we may discourage editors who are motivated by exposure and efficacy. It's a difficult balance. I'm not sure. Deco 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like this for several reasons, but primarily that it's a no downside plan. Having a tab or some other brilliant idea for acsessing the stable version would allow those that want that to have it and those that don't to get the wiki. I think frozen version being accessible at something like http://en.wikipedia.org/Richard Feynman would be great. Having this frozen version available would allow quickly validating the worth of this idea. My belief is that you would very quickly see people going to that as the destination if they are wanting to actually use the information, and then going to the wiki if they want to fix something. Of course as I've said above also having an editable, though stable, branch has even more advantages. But having the wiki version the default for now is clearly the lower risk, and lower shock way to change. - Taxman Talk 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm compelled to agree for the reasons stated. But there should at least be a user preference to view stable versions by default. Deco 05:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having a tab to see the stable version, and a user preference to view stable versions by default.   Kevin baas 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Different modes

message: Will they see the stable version?  The dynamic version?  Both at once?  How will the interface notify them that another version exists?  Will logged-in users see the dynamic version while logged-out ones see the stable version?
Also, who's designing the new interface?  It's really important that everything work well, be usability-tested first, etc.  I'm sure a lot of top-flight designers would be willing to go pro-bono for the publicity.  It would be cool if you could get Zeldman, for example. Tlogmer 17:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Intuitively, it seems like we would want to show the stable version by default. The theory is that the stable version is more reliable and so better suited for public use. However, by making the working version less prominent to readers, we may discourage editors who are motivated by exposure and efficacy. It's a difficult balance. I'm not sure. Deco 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like this for several reasons, but primarily that it's a no downside plan. Having a tab or some other brilliant idea for acsessing the stable version would allow those that want that to have it and those that don't to get the wiki. I think frozen version being accessible at something like http://en.wikipedia.org/Richard Feynman would be great. Having this frozen version available would allow quickly validating the worth of this idea. My belief is that you would very quickly see people going to that as the destination if they are wanting to actually use the information, and then going to the wiki if they want to fix something. Of course as I've said above also having an editable, though stable, branch has even more advantages. But having the wiki version the default for now is clearly the lower risk, and lower shock way to change. - Taxman Talk 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm compelled to agree for the reasons stated. But there should at least be a user preference to view stable versions by default. Deco 05:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having a tab to see the stable version, and a user preference to view stable versions by default.   Kevin baas 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What version will users see first?