Wikipedia talk:Static version

message: This smells familiar...sort of like WP:STABLE. A merge might be necessary. Johnleemk | Talk 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... I had to pick the word 'static' because 'stable version' is already a redirect there.  I feel this proposal is fundamentally different though - I'll add a bit to the page to explain why.  Worldtraveller 09:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's closer to what I had thought. I still don't see the difference with this and WP:STABLE. Stable kind of describes a number of the options that have been discussed. I also think the stable needs to be an editable branch instead of a frozen oldid. With advanded diff and merge functions keeping up to date with good changes but eliminating the bad would be possible. - Taxman Talk 18:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I also think the stable needs to be an editable branch instead of a frozen oldid" - no! If it is seperately editable, then it becomes a fork, and forks are a Very Bad Thing. Raul654 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason for it to be a very bad thing :). It's still Wikipedia, but having an editable branch with approved editors only allows eliminating vandalism, trolling, revert wars and other sundry problems we deal with every day. I believe it is the only way we'll attract enough of the type of talented people we need to develop the type of content we need. I believe those problems are holding us back from where we need to be. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the stable versoin is editable (as opposed to what I suggested, which essentially it's a copy of an old version deemed by an admin to be vandalism free, 'etc) then essnetially it becomes a new Nupedia. I do not see what the purpose of letting people edit stable seperately would be - I only see downsides to it. Raul654 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An editable stable branch allows all the advantages I listed above, basically through stricter conduct policies. Some minimum qualification to get in, and strict conduct policies-any edit warring, trolling, etc and you're out. That combination would eliminate the downsides of the current system and allow attracting the type of editors that refuse to edit now because of that crap. We are in a very different position than Nupedia was. We have momentum and content. People will cry anti-wiki, but it's still very much a wiki and still very open to anyone as long as they demonstrate trust first, which we have an easy system for. It pretty much hits the best of both worlds. What we have established is the current system isn't working very well in producing large enough volumes of high quality content. It's worth experimenting with some new options. - Taxman Talk 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong, I'm for that too, I just don't think it goes far enough. I'm fine with it as the lower change option at first as long as the option for an editable stable branch isn't forgotten about or made more difficult/impossible. I believe Tim Starling has some demonstration code for an editable stable branch, but he hasn't gotten time to work on it much. I also agree now is the time to no longer give disruptive users so much sway. Not sure where to successfully coordinate work on that. Doing it in the blocking policy talk page doesn't seem enough as for it to work people need to see and understand the why's-not just the people that come to that talk page. - Taxman Talk 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is an editable stable branch not a fork?  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't, because technically in some ways it is. I clarified my comment above to reflect what I meant. But also when software projects have a stable and a testing branch no one really worries about that being a fork. Think Debian, FreeBSD, etc. When the branch follows the same basic policies and methods, it's not a problematic fork. Yes it always adds some overhead, but if the end result is more net positive, that cost is worth incurring. I obviously believe it would be worth it in this case just like many opensource software projects have discovered. I strongly believe it would be worth a test, and that people would soon see the benefits are enormous. But like I said it comes down to the code, so... - Taxman Talk 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: Move Wikimania to London and I'll be there!  I'll be very interested to find out what the response is to your talk.  I suppose with this proposal I'm more or less ignoring how the validation would be done and just proposing what should be done with validated articles.  Will your talk address that point as well?  Worldtraveller 15:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimania discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: It all rests on the code. There's not too much we can do before that it ironed out. - Taxman Talk 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any further thoughts?

message: 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)
thread_title: Extracting list of articles from Category

message: 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)
thread_title:  stable or static versions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Focus of this version should be on discussion. A static wikipedia is an oxymoron