Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Objections archive: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:55, 3 January 2005

Revision as of 05:58, 3 January 2005

Line 1:

[[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]]

==Waste of time?==

Adam's comments were copied from the project page.

This is all very well, but there cannot be a "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" until there is a Wikipedia:Version 1.0 for them to edit: that is, a body of articles which is protected from editing by people other than the Editorial Team. Why should people put time and effort into editing these articles if they are subject to the same kind of ignorant vandalism as are all other Wikipedia articles? Has Wikipedia agreed to create a privileged class of editors and to permanently protect the articles they edit? I think not. Secondly, what are the criteria for admission to this team? Is it open to anonymous or pseudonymous editors? Or is there going to be a process of credentialing, including disclosure of real names? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 10:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*Who can be on the team:

:Right now, anyone. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am open to other ideas. If a consensus develops to restrict the team in some way, so be it.

*Why should anyone do this when the articles are not protected:

:We can list article versions here. If the article worsens, the team will still have its version handy.

:I am not saying that anything about this, including the result, will be perfect.

:I see it roughly as a matter of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

:Apparently, discussion of a 1.0 version has been around for about a year. This Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team is something tangible that interested people can work on while anything better does, or does not, develop.

:For the sake of discussion, let's say imagine that such a scenario as you suggested above develops. That will take time: time to persuade others, time to decide which editors are in the privileged class, etc.

:In the meantime, this team can lay the groundwork. For one thing, we expect to work on articles that are most likely to be included in any limited version. Improving and screening those articles would reduce the work needed for any more-refined efforts later. And for the people doing that groundwork, it could be a better use of our time than working on narrow topics less likely to be included in a limited version. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 13:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: I don't think that is realistically '''ever''' going to happen on wikipedia. Too many people would be against those ideas. Given that, I think there are two options: proceed with trying to get a "1.0 version" (whatever that might mean) done within the current system, or create a fork of wikipedia that implements the system you describe. Waiting for the changes you want is not an option if 1.0 is ever going to become a reality. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 01:41, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

::Shane, I don't get your point. As far as what's not going to happen on Wikipedia, are you talking about Adam's ideas or mine? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 01:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: I was replying to Adam's ideas. The idea of a priviledged class of editors who can protect articles from non priviledged editors has close to zero chance of ever being accepted. If Adam says 1.0 can't happen without it, then basically he's saying 1.0 can't happen. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 05:54, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

==Goal and process==