20:26 -!- Raul654 [n=Raul654@wikipedia/Raul654] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
20:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Hi all
20:26 <NotACow> access #wikipedia-en-admins add raul654 5
20:26 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- [Raul654] has been added to the access list for #wikipedia-en-admins with level [5]
20:26 -ChanServ:#wikipedia-en-admins- NotACow!n=kmartin@pdpc/supporter/monthlysilver/karynn ACCESS [#wikipedia-en-admins] ADD Raul654 5
20:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Sasquatch> hey Raul654 :-)
20:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> welcome
20:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> hey
20:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Danny asked me to come here
20:27 -!- Inviting A_Man_In_Black to #wikipedia-en-admins
20:27 -!- A_Man_In_Black [n=AMIB@dialup-4.245.72.66.Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
20:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: You sound like you're unhappy about being here.
20:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Yarr!
20:27 <NotACow> access #wikipedia-en-admins add A_Man_In_Black 5
20:27 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- [A_Man_In_Black] has been added to the access list for #wikipedia-en-admins with level [5]
20:27 -ChanServ:#wikipedia-en-admins- NotACow!n=kmartin@pdpc/supporter/monthlysilver/karynn ACCESS [#wikipedia-en-admins] ADD A_Man_In_Black 5
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> meh
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I'm annoyed that I had so much trouble getting in ;)
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Sasquatch> well this is double secret
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> haha
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> Raul654: that's because nobody could remember how to op up inhere
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> [21:23] <Raul654> can someone give me an invite there
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> [21:23] <EVula> Are you an admin?
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> bwhahah
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Sasquatch> hahaha!
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * FCYTravis giggles
20:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Sasquatch> now that's funny
20:29 -!- kylu [n=kylu@wikimedia/Kylu] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
20:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < mindspillage> Heh!
20:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> so lets get back on topic here
20:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> dannyisme: How'd it go?
20:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Greetings Raul.
20:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> ok
20:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> Cyde, Raul is opposed
20:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (hi Cyde)
20:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I am very opposed to the stable-versions-now proposal
20:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> and that is because ...
20:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> # I dislike this proposal greatly for a number of reasons that others have already stated. I had previously suggested a stable version system requiring only a modicum of technical changes (Jimbo's response: "I more or less like it."). Raul654 21:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
20:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178045&cid=14767973 <-- this was the link
20:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: And Jimbo said he liked this too.. So next point.
20:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: I don't know if you've noticed this, but modicums of technical change don't come quickly. The diffset that fixed bug 550 fits on my screens.
20:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Ok, it is a hack. It is an attempt to create stable versions where the software lacks the capability to, when there are other, better proposals available
20:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> It is unwiki - it goes against a number of important principles
20:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: lets address the first for a moment.
20:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> being "wiki" is a means, not an end
20:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Indeed, it is a hack. It could easily be replaced with software with the correct functionality when it is read.  More importantly, none of the process or social aspects would have to change substantially once the software was done.
20:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Let me put it this way
20:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I have no problem with creating a stable version, per se
20:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> In that time span we would gain the expirence needed to dictate the exact behavior of the software.
20:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I vehemtnly object to putting it in the same place where the old, development version was
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Lets move on to that point then.
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> What advantage would a stable version offer if it were not what we presented to the readers?
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> other than general ugliness of having one more template to adorn the top of articles, I don't have too many issues with have a /stable subpage
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the fact is, most of the people who come here do not giuve a damn about editing articles--most dont even realize you can
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> they come looking for information
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> we are telling them, this is quality information
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> dannyisme: Editing is *Very important* ... (semi)-protection goofs up editing. And yet it's used far too widely on the wiki.
20:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> True danny, people are being misled, BUT
20:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> The important thing is that stable versions (in any form) do not preclude editing like protection does.
20:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> I actually agree with Raul on this one I''m afraid
20:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I do, however, vemently object to the reverse
20:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: What advantages would you see to a stable version solution (take your pick.. the ideal one)
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Semi-protection is a contained beast now :)
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - I like the idea of having a stable version; I do not like the current proposal
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Pilotguy: I dunno, people are still freely able to edit the dev version, and hopefully that will be incorporated relatively often into the main version.  This way we just don't give vandals the satisfaction of their vandalism being viewed by anyone but editors.
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Wait, is the stable versions proposal being taken seriously?
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: Indeed
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: :) We've established this. I'm trying to better understand your objections.
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> AMAB - yes, Gmaxwell attempted to impliment it on [[cheese]] a few minutes ago
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> But see
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Yikes!
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * wmarsh prefers his cheese stable
20:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Yeah, stable versions suck.
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> That is why we have RC patrol, etc
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Pilotguy: RC patrol doesn't work.
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - I object to mixing 'stable' and 'development' versions in the same namespace
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> that's what it comes down to, I suppose
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> RC Patrol is overwhelmed
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> Yes, I understand the reasoning behind it and all, but whyyyyy?
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> It's not going to cut down on vandalism, just give us a whole fuckton of new things to fight about.
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < wmarsh> RC patrol is not 100%, especially against sneaky vandals
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> It prevents vandalism but it often doesn't prevent wholesale chopping up and slashing of good articles.
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: So you don't object to readers initally seeing the stable version?
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> We are very good at stopping the "OMG COCK" vandals
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> 'intentionally'?
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < mindspillage> Raul654: it that a deal breaker for you? because it's awfully silly demand a new namespace in the testing phase.
20:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> we are not nearly as good at stopping the "I'm going to completely change the meaning of this article" folks.
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> initially
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> I just don't know
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < wmarsh> Actually the petty vandals just run into the buzzsaw of our many bots, which is a good thing
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> If it's chopped up and slashed, surely somone will notice it and fix it
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NicholasT sighs
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> erm, intiailly?
20:39 -!- Dragonfly6-7 [i=zwit@MTL-HSE-ppp206254.qc.sympatico.ca] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Pilotguy: Out of 1,000,000 articles they'll notice one?
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < mindspillage> Pilotguy: one would think, but not always.
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheese&diff=65648531&oldid=54747745 < Three months, and 500 edits, to cheese.
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> Of course they will
20:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Wait. What problem is stable supposed to fix?
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> I just see this as causing fights, disagreements, people won't agree to revert it to a ceratin version, etc
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> A_Man_In_Black: I think it's meant to try to maintain article quality where articles are up to a decent standard.
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Mindspillage - it's not a silly demand - it's a very important thing not to mix stable and development
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < wmarsh> Even still, many sports and pop music/rap articles are watched by 1, maybe 2 or 3 really good editors... when POV pushers showing up and wanting to rewrite everything on a weekly basis, it takes a ton of energy to keep pace with that
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> b/c you know we have [[WP:DICK]]s out there
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> NickT: And reverting stupidity doesn't dothis how?
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Pilotguy: The proposal instructs you not to use it when there is any contraversy.. It doesn't solve all problems.
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> comment here
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> A_Man_In_Black: *shrug* Don't ask me. It's not my proposal, and I don't support it. :)
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> I'm with Pilot. This solves nothing but creates a ton of bullshit.
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> AMIB: Do you know how much stupidity doesn't get reverted?
20:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> All heat, no light.
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> FCY: How does this solve that problem?
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> we know that professional pov pushers are invoved in wikipedia now
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: They always have been, though, since time immemorial
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> If nobody is watching, the stable versions don't get reverted back to the stable versions.
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> sigh
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> The stable versions are protected, AMIB.
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> no, nicholas
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> If somebody is watching, the bullshit gets fixed.
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> that is not true
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> what we need is for people to be paid to watch Wikipedia
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: http://orange.blender.org/blog/an-embarrassing-mistake/
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> unfortunately
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> Plus, ownership issues, etc
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> btw, only 66 percent of our articles are watched
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: For example, stable versions would easily of prevented that.
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> Dragonfly6-7: i'll volunteer to be paid
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I hadn't evne considered ownership issues
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> but that's important
20:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: Really? But I've seen advertising garbage forever...
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> that means about 400.000 arent
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Pilotguy: No ownership issues here. If there's controversy, it gets destabilized.
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> No ifs, ands or buts.
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> you dont notice the subtle stuff
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: No, the bullshit doesn't get fixed nearly as often if the bullshit is being inserted continuously versus if someone is looking at a week's worth of diffs and deciding whether to update the stable version.
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> BRB 2 minutes
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> No, reverting it to such a version will cause some controversy. Period.
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Basically, I don't see the harm in giving it a shot on completely uncontroversial articles
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Pilotguy: The stable version is meant to be protected, you see
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Clearly, we shouldn't be going around making everything stable tomorrow
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> no
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> NullC - argh!
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> Since when have people on wikipedia agreed to something? just look at this channel
20:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> But I think it's very wiki-like to allow a limited-scale experiment.
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> but we should get people to strive to bring articles up to stable quality
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> exactly travis
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Dragonfly6-7: What arging about?
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Pilotguy: so in other words, the stable version can't be edited; the "development" version, in a subpage (I think I've got this right) will be the editable version of the article. Personally I dislike the idea because I think it will restrict the wiki philosophy of "edit this page" somewhat, and give the impression of "finished" articles
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> I don't think anyone's going to go out and make [[George W. Bush]] stable.
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> NullC - the URL you provided
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> I think "stable" is going to quickly result in "stagnant".
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Also, the inevitable fights about when to go to stable.
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Dragonfly6-7: isn't that lovely?
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> I know it will be protected, that's fine, that's not the issue
20:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> dannyisme, to be fair, many of our articles haven't been edited much at all	(let alone vandalised).  The more obscure articles are vandalised less, although such vandalism as does occur may be a drastic problem for those articles.
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: if there is a fight, no stable version.
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> We have no obligation to make everything stable.
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Any disagreement. No stable. It's that simple.
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> there are non controversial articles that can slowly be stabilized
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Null: So, if one idiot complains about [[cheese]], we need to call in an admin to merge the page histories again?
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Fuck that.
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Tony_Sidaway: I think that's an important point; the magnitude of severity in terms of detriment to article quality is inversely proportionate to the level that the article is watched
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> essentially, what we are doing is using stable to mark feature quality articles
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: history merging isn't needed.
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> NotACow - we've got a slight problem on #wikipedia - a cluster of users named maqsarian, maqsarian_, maqsarian__, etc
20:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> can you /kick some of 'em?
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> A_Man_In_Black- Exactly.
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: takes a page move to destabalize.
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_language&diff=47399527&oldid=47333572
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> ^ look at that.
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Tony_Sidaway: and since the stabilised articles will be the ones that are watched often, since they'd be decent quality because people had looked at them, means that it doesn't really fix that problem
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> That caused a DVD Movie to go out with an offensive slur in its language menu!
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> You still need an admin to intervene whenever you have one person who complains about [[cheese]], for whatever retarded reason.
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> And that will add to our burden
20:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: No, they just edit the dev version and it gets incorporated the next time the stable version is updated.
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * Raul654 returns
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> A_Man_In_Black: It's true. And I can see an expansion of The Wrong Version also
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: only if they protest that it's POV or whatever. Cheese, under this system would not have been destabalized in the prior three months.
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: Looney: "I think this article insufficiently emphasizes the importance of cheddar!" Everyone else: "You are a troll."
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> A_Man_In_Black: "You protected a deliberately POV version! You are an <Islamic fundamentalist/Holocaust denier/Nazi/Macedonian/Greek> POV pusher who is destroying Wikipedia!"
20:46 -!- Amgine_ [n=Amgine@wikinews/Amgine] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> NickT has it.
20:46 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: you argue that, but it simply hasn't happened.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: That example has nothing to do with stable versions and everything to do with trolls.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Worse when we have someone actually protect a deliberately POV version.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Someone could be a jackass about cheddar right now.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: So the page gets destablized.. No harm. It's not intended to solve all pages.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: If we ignore trolls, we need to decide WHICH protests are enough to prevent use of stable.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> GRUYERE UBER ALLES
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - if anyone can protest and 'destabalize' an article, then it does nothing to solve the problem of "professional POV pushers" mentioned a few minutes ago; in fact, it would increase the total amount of work
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: Would require a rogue admin, and they could do that doay.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * Boten_Anna would rahter be fighting over what is a good version of an article than reverting penis vandals
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> But what if that's happwns everywhere?
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> And down that road lies madness.
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> There are not that many rouge admins out there
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Indeed - but then we'd be constantly having a process of stabilising, destablising, stabilising, etc. on controversial pages, which could only increase editing temperature
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> no, raul, because those articles will not get stabilized
20:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: I do not understand the substance of your objections.
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Professional POV pushers are a hard problem, but they are not a problem on the vast majority of the articles.
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < EWS23> Boten_Anna: Good point.
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> professional cheese pushing?
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: No, if it's controversion, you don't stabalize it.
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: I'm saying that this is inevitably going to lead to lame arguments about what's /really/ stable and what isn't.
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_language&diff=47399527&oldid=47333572
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> I agree.  No point making Khmer Rouge and whatnot "stable"
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> And anything that is vandalized is doubly likely to see this lameness.
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> george bush or israel will not be stable
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: But surely if the controversial pages aren't stabilised, then the purpose of the proposal is rather eviscerated
20:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Yes, NullC, I remember this is the edit that made it into the DVD
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: And I'm saying we already have arguments about everything under the Sun.  In the end though this will make less arguments because people won't be revert-warring with each other on a live version; they will actually take time to discuss stuff since it's just the dev version.
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: Cheese has been vandalized over 200 times in the last three months.... yet no weird cheese POV trolls.
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: Not at all. People can get bad information from all sorts of articles.
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> now we're going to get cheese trolls. i know it.
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_language&diff=47399527&oldid=47333572
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> There will be people insisting that the Thunderball article neglects one or other remake, but if they keep it up they go to arbitration.
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Cyde - that's wishful thinking
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: look at that diff.
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> you *hope* people won't be revert warring on the develoment version
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Ah yes, the one that made it into the DVD stable version?
20:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: But we don't stablize articles with revert wars, you just said. Don't act as if this will solve revert wars.
20:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> It causes a production house to press a DVD using an insulting word on the language menu.. Thats simple vandalism, not POV pushing.
20:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: Why wouldn't it solve revert wars?  The page is protected!  How can they revert war!
20:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: Because we don't stablize controversial articles.
20:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Cyde: If there's a revert war, it shouldn't be stabilized.
20:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: people will still edit war on the development version.
20:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: It might be reasonable to expect that there would be less edit waring, because the urgency (MUST REVERT NOW) is reduced.
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: but thats speculation.
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> http://www.poststar.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/doc44c4f0c38f17b506178010.txt s - isn't this sweet?
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Okay, so even if we don't use stable versions on "controversial" articles (however that is decided), it will still help a lot on articles such as [[Cheese]].
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> we already have policies (the 3rr) and tools (user blocking, protection) to end revert warring
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> so that is not a pressing concern
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> This is only about entirely uncontroversial, good articles. If there's only 5 of those that we can find right now, fine, we experiment with five.
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> "However that is decided" is a big deal.
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Cyde: controversial is simply decided by people opposing it being stabalized or arguing over which version.
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> How DO we pick "entirely uncontroversial" articles?
20:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Actually on that front I see the following: 1) a POV pusher will change something on the dev version of the article. 2) they will bother every admin under the sun to say the new version HAS to be stabilised; 3) the other POV side(s) will then chime in, making a nice furore for us to deal with
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> A_Man_in_Black: Is anyone revert-warring over [[Cheese]] right now?
20:52 -!- Aranda56 [i=icechat5@wikipedia/Aranda56] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> So, we start with Cheese.
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: However, picking "uncontroversial" articles would of course prevent that
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: then the admin comes and says 'fuck this, it's not stable' and removes the flag..
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> FCY - No, there are a number of objections that have not been addressed
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> It's not insurance against POV pushers..
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Hmm...
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> None of us are smart enough to write *a process* which solves POV pushing.
20:52 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: No - my concern is more it might make the existing issues worse
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * kylu taps NicholasT and NullC on shoulders?
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: To avoid that we default to making the article normal in a dispute.
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> i like the proposal in a way
20:53 -!- Amgine_ [n=Amgine@wikinews/Amgine] has left #wikipedia-en-admins []
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * kylu offers tacos. ^.^
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> And nobody has really gotten into the ownership articles
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: since [[m:The Wrong Version]] causes enough acrimony as it is; theoretically it would take only one idiot to force admins to destabilise the articles
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> issues*
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * Boten_Anna wonders what are the existing issues on Cheese?
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NicholasT gratefully accepts a taco from kylu 
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Raul: And what I'm saying is that if we give it a try we can find out whether those objections are true. If it turns into a revert-warring disaster, we can shitcan it in a week.
20:53 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> this would *seriously* increase probelms with article ownership
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> This is a Wiki, we can experiment.
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: Indeed! although if the idiot makes it his mission to do that all over the wiki, I think he'd find himself in trouble quickly.
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> NickT has it in one.
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: How so?
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Is there a single article that would /benefit/ from this?
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - because it would officially make non-admins second class citizens
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> AMAB - good question. No.
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: 'Owners' are not declared.... and the process must be complete by an admin largely uninvolved in the article.
20:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Has [[cheese]] remained vandalised for longer than, say, five minutes ever?
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * A_Man_In_Black is AMIB. ¬_¬
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: That is true, although that in itself carries with it the necessity for admins to be "iron fist" rather than "janitor"
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - yes, you say that now. In practice, that will be the first thing to go
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> because it is impractical
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Does protection and semi protection make non-admins second class citizens?
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < EWS23> Boten_Anna: Some users are concerned that [[Cheese]] isn't properly refrigerated. Only yesterday someone put a {{not-refrigerated}} tag at the top. ;-)
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - to an extent, yes
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> But their applications are limited
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> now, we are expanding hte field to every article on wikipedia
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: It's not really fair to oppose something on the basis of how you suspect someone might change it in the future.
20:55 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: No, not every article.
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> how to convince http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Talk:Bureaucratic_Fuck them that I don't want an article there
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> We've already got at least one admin infamous for closing XFD/DRVs he/she is involved in. What happens when we empower admins to decide when articles should be stablized?
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> You've seen that it's setup to be removed in the case of dispute, that does limit it's applicability.
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: Don't beat around the bush.  Who is it?
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> ok, so all but a handful
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: Tony.
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: Admins are already empowered to protect articles, that's pretty much the same thing.
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: So now you're going to tell me that your argument is based on people ignoring the proposal entirely (i.e. not turning it off if there is a dispute)
20:56 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> I like stablize versions a little
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> I do likewise echo Raul654's concerns re. second class citizenship because it *could* damage the "edit this page" ethos quite severely, since it will be "edit a sandbox version of this page" rather than "edit this page"; we thus will be less a wiki and more something akin to a site with modding
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: And those tools are already limited by the existing revert war tools.
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NullC buys aranda56 a round of his favorite drink(s)
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - in theory, admins should never ban someone they are involved in a dispute with - they do. In theory, admins should never protect an article they are involved in war with - they do.
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> NicholasT: At this point I think we're too big to be a pure-wiki.
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Er, revert war rules.
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> for articles like Cheese, George Bush
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Under your proposal, they cannot 'stabalize' an article they have been invovled with.
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: and you've opposed deadmining them for it on arbcom, but thats another matter. ;)
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> that is so impractical as to be laughable
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Cyde: Yes - but moderation is a far cry from even a wiki
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: So stabilizing an article would be limited by revert war tools too.  I don't see the diff.
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> and , frankly, will not last 5 minutes
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Why give admins ANOTHER abusable tool, with little benefit from giving them that tool at all?
20:57 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> I prefer partial stable
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> CydE: How is the 3RR going to prevent protecting articles an admin is involved with?
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: It's intended to be followed with common sense.. If we cant expect that from admins we should give up now.
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> let people who are obvious won't be admins like SPUI edit
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> it's unworkable as-is
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: I see sizable benefits, especially on highly-edited or vandalized articles.
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: Such as?
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Your vision of how things will be requires a complete failure to assume good faith on hte part of admins.
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> NullC: Assume good faith is a personal thing.
20:58 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Your proposal ignores reality and experience
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Any given large group has at least two goobers.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: Highly-edited or vandalized articles.  We give our readers the best page at all times, not something could be crap a good portion of the time.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: I wonder if we couldn't do this another way around, having a /Stable subpage of the article, with a link at the top of the page saying "View the version of this article stabilised by <admin> at <time>", so the main version is always editable but if people want a "certified" version they can click on the stable one
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: You keep asserting this, but you're not convincing me.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cyde: Such as? I'm waiting for an /example/.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> I agree with Cyde
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: Go look at the history on GWB.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> George W Bush
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> 50 Cent
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> GWB isn't controversial?
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> A_Man_In_Black: You tell me we're doing the best service to our readers with that.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: And what advantage would that offer over doing nothing?
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < kylu> NicholasT: then people could just delete that shortcut. c.c
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> GWB flunks "non-controversial." Hilariously so.
20:59 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> 50 Cent, likewise.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> our readers outnumber our editors 200 to one right now
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> those articles that are semi all the time because of uncontrolable vandalism
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Those are NOT uncontroversial article.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Why are we restricting it to non-controversial again?
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> kylu: it could be easily added to monobook
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Er, articles.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> we owe them a quality version of articles
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> at least a core of articles
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < kylu> quite true
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Because otherwise we're stablizing articles with an ongoing dispute.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Nicholas - I agree with you 100%
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> And now we're in HELL.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> A_Man_In_Black: A simple example [[cheese]] there are so many silly vandalism artices it's not even funny.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Cyde: Because... what AMIB said.
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> Cheese or Mariah Carey which cruft attracts
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> We don't want to stabilize articles that are undergoing highly active editing or disputes
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Cyde: restricting it to non-controversial articles reduces the risk of 'wrong verson'
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Danny - ok, so make a /stable subpage for articles, or have a new namespace
21:00 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Now we're fighting from here to the END OF TIME about which version to protect.
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> but do not mix stable and develoment versions
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Cyde: and will give us time to figure out how to do that.
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Well it means if people want a factually-stable version, they can look at the stable version. That would prevent things like the DVD goof, and mean that there will always be a reliable version of the stabilised article. It means that the "edit this page" ethos is intact whilst providing an encyclopaedic-quality version of the articles that are properly developed enough to create one
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the essence of this project isnt development
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Well then as an example of something it could help, that would be every article like [[Cheese]] that doesn't change much over time but can get really crappy due to vandalism.
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the essence of this project is to create an encyclopedia
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Can someone offer me an example of when [[cheese]] spent more than five minutes vandalized?
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: You didn't answer an important prior question of mine... Do you oppose readers seeing the stable version by default.
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> new namespace I prefer
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: But surely "create an encyclopaedia" = development of pages?
21:01 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - define 'default'?
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> AMIB: What could those editors have been doing instead of reverting a bazillion vandalous edits?
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> yes, and some of the articles are developed
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: random joe comes in via google to an article that has a stable version.
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: even the Britannica undergoes constant redevelopment from edition to edition
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> ... what does he see?
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> this allows for articles to be improved
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> FCY: We need RC Patrol either way.
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < lar> I guess what I am not getting, coming in a bit cold, is why we can't try the experiment? Isn't that how we learn things? Why revert an experiment Raul654 ?
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I oppose doing development anywhere but where we have come to expect it - en.wikipedia.org/stable/article_name
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> AMIB: Five minutes or less is often all it takes to get a bunch of OTRS e-mails.
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> if a newer version of cheese is better it wil replace the old one
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> erm
21:02 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> erm /wiki/article_name
21:03 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> en.stablepedia.org/wiki/ :p
21:03 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Please answer my question. It's important. I'm not asking about editing, I'm asking about what a new reader sees.
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Remember .. readers.. the folks that outnumber editors hundreds to one? :) :)
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - your question is ill defined
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> 200 to 1
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> readers?  people read wikipedia?
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: He sees essentially something that resembles the "fixed format" online encyclopaedias
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - you ask if I object to them seeing "by default" a stable versoin. I ask what you mean by default, you do not answer
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: I'm a reader, I type cheese into google. Top his is wikipedia. I click. I see the stable version rather than the most current.
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Raul654: He means the stable version is located at the article location.
21:04 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: I've now answered you twice.
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Raul654: And the editable dev version is elsewhere.
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> I'm off to go pilot a Strider (HL2 mod)
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < EWS23> A_Man_In_Black: This version was in place for seven minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheese&diff=prev&oldid=54986636
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> hehe
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Cyde - I object to that
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Prior time: <NullC> Raul654: random joe comes in via google to an article that has a stable version. ... what does he see?
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (for the 500th time)
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Raul654: You can't stop me.
21:05 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Raul654: I'm killing those Zombines.
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: More specifically, though, the user would be seeing the "fixed" version rather than that undergoing work, which would mean that superficially it wouldn't really be a wiki
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - it depends on which one google links to
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: It might, perhaps, dissuade potential new contributors.
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> Nicholas, the user is not coming to see a wiki
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> they're coming to see an encyclopedia
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the user is coming to find information
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - I object to doing article development anywhere than where we have established. If a user comes in from google, what article he sees depends 100% on google
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: of course, editing buttons are still there.
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> they don't expect penises.
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> they are coming to do homework
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: We are not the helpless victims of google.
21:06 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> if they link to the stable subpage, he sees the stable version
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> EW: That vandalism seems to show to me that the vandalbotsneed to be improved.
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> if they link to the development version, he sees the dev version
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> either way, there should be no confusion
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: Yes and no. You are correct as regards some use cases; but it is worth remembering that the potential editor use-case is equally valuable, since we can't create an encyclopaedia without competent editors
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: presume google links to the same place they have always linked.
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> they see the template
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - if they are linking to the same place they have always linked, they they should get what they have always gotten 0- the development version
21:07 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> they see the development link
21:08 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> we should not be displacing the development version with a stable version
21:08 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: the wiki philosophy in its standard form - general ability to edit pages - is, IMO, necessary to get users interested in the "free software" type concept interested in contributing. Yes they see the development link - but probably unless they knew what it was all about first, the process would be less clear
21:08 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Though I think you answered me the most with your claim that it's unwiki.
21:08 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Why do you claim to support stable versions if you do not want our readers to see them?
21:08 -!- Mark_Ryan [i=Mark_Rya@wikipedia/mark] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
21:08 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> That's a bit like "Have you stopped beating your wife", NullC. :)
21:08 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - Mu. Your question presumes facts not in the record
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < EWS23> A_Man_In_Black: Perhaps. But there's already a lot of false positives. Not sure how you would code it to fix something like that. No large removal of content, no all caps, no curse words. I suppose you could run it through an entire dictionary, but that would be hard and would revert tyops.
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Then correct me.
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I support stable versions properly labeled as such
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> you're all GEEKS
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I do not supprot mixing stable and development versions
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> "not want readers to see them" != stable version not primary
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I do not support displacing development versions with stable version
21:09 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: What does mixing mean? Having them on the same domain name? be specific.
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> We should not, under any circumstances, have a stable version located at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/article_name
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> put the stable version on a subpage
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: I can't get a straight answer to if he doesn't want stable versions primary.
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> or in a different namespace
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Mark_Ryan: Yes, we are. :)
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> but not in the current location
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> so you want invisible stable versions?
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> there's no point to that
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> No, put a template at the top of the dev version saying there is a stable version available
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: It is unlikely that a stable version on a subpage will help our readers.
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> NicholasT, finally, someone who admits the truth! heh ;)
21:10 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> no subpages
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: I would say, I would want development versions primary, and stable versions secondary; I think Raul654 is saying that the stable versions should be in some kind of separate space, like two versions of Wikipedia
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: it would not decrease the incentive to vandalize, and would not reduce their penis exposure quotent.
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> that looks plain shitty, we need a dev to to give it a different index IE page/stable but the same title
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < EWS23> NullC: Please don't use technical jargon like penis exposure quotent. ;-)
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: A significant portion, potentially a majority, of our readers do not realize they can edit.
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: No, it wouldn't decrease the incentive to vandalise; but if there is a stable version available, then vandalism - to a degree - becomes less an issue of life and death
21:11 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> The stable version should be the default
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NullC agrees with Voice_of_All 
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - and mixing versions will only confuse the issue worse
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> NicholasT: Not if the first thing everyone sees is the vandalized version.
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: How is having them in the same namespace mixing them? What harm will mixing cause?
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> It'll have the same effect of "holy shit we've got someone libeled on wikipedia, again."
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> FCYTravis: Of course - but isn't that already the case?
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - because it's unwiki, and then people do not know what they are getting when they click a wikipedia link
21:12 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> which I oppose
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> NicholasT: We're trying to find ways to improve the situation, not remain status quo.
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> when I go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/article_name, I want to know I'm getting the latest version
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: God forbid they get an encyclopedia article rather than an expirment in extreme anarchy
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Even if the latest version is completely unhelpful to the reader?
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Wiki would still be "look at what happens when a bunch of people from anywhere can edit an encyclopedia"
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> But it would polish it, finish it
21:13 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - I think you just answered your own question
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> I think basically what Raul654 is saying is that he doesn't like the idea of some articles being editable, and others stable - that there should be a separate link for the stable version
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> "finish"
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> It would make it somewhat citable
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Yes
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> Raul654: what you want is relatively unimportant; it's what our READERS want that matters.  your minor inconvenience is nothing in comparison.
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Do you believe our readers want the latest version more than the version without goatse?
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NotACow: But have we asked them?
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Wikies are good a piling up info and good articles, but they can just as easily be vandalized/POVed/fucked up
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - I beleive it hurts the readers *greatly* to give them a mixed bag
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NotACow: his minor inconvience can be trivially solved with software too...
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> NicholasT: they don't talk back
21:14 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: we're already giving them that.
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < mindspillage> Some of them do... the ones who complain, anyway.
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: some pages are goatse.. Some pages are great.
21:15 #wikipedia: < A_Man_In_Black> Aw. Can someone re-invite me to #wikipedia-en-admins?
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> NicholasT: It doesn't really matter what our readers want. Our mission is to create a free encyclopedia.
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NotACow: true. But thus, can we make assumptions on what users want?
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Or did everyone forget what's at the top of the page?
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> FCYTravis: Yes, that is true
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> That's pedantic. What you are proposing is a vast departure from our current modus operandi
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> they are not comparable
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> FCYTravis: Yes, .. am I foolish to expect that encyclopedia implies useable?
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> aw crap
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NicholasT smiles
21:15 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - can you stop is the loaded questions already
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Hardly, Raul. A vast departure would be if we made every article stable tomorrow.
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> it gets irritating
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Obviously I don't see it as such a great departure as you do.
21:16 -!- mode/#wikipedia-en-admins [+o Mark_Ryan] by ChanServ
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> A small experiment would be to start making uncontroversial articles stable.
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Nor do I
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> Ok someone summarize what you all were talking about for the past half hour,lol
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> "A vast departure" may well happen when people disagree with this new process, and leave WP as a concept
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> NicholasT: well, we ahve some idea, based on the complaints we get from them
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> FCY - it starts as a small experiment. It wasn't supposed to start at all
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> NicholasT: oh, bah.
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Because there was vehement opposition on the talk page that was ignored
21:16 -!- A_Man_In_Black [n=AMIB@dialup-4.245.79.224.Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NotACow: Perhaps a little research may be in order?
21:16 -!- mode/#wikipedia-en-admins [-o Mark_Ryan] by Mark_Ryan
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Raul: I suppose you could say that about all of Wikipedia.
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Cursed modem.
21:16 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> A_Man_In_Black: you can always just go /cs invite #wikipedia-en-admins
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Oh.
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: only two of the people in the oppose section last I checked had been editing prior to 2006.
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> This entire project is an experiment.
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * A_Man_In_Black did not know that.
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> Or get a cloak
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> once you're on the list, you can invite yourself :)
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> If stable versions fail, the experiment can be scrapped.
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: What bad thing do you expect to happen if we use it on a few articles?
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - that's a pointless statement. They are editors, they are entitled to express tehir opinions
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: That may be so - but I object if the implication is the only people who oppose the measure are those inexperienced on Wikipedia
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pilotguy> You can get an unaffiliated cloak, PM nalioth
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: and editors are editors
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Indeed, they are entitled to express their views.
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - because it is not going to *stay* on a few articles
21:17 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> What in the what now?
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> what you are proposing applies to all but a handful of articles
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Nicholas: Likewise, I object if the implication of the result of a poll of less than 25 people is that this is a horirble thing.
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> How many people voted on that straw poll?
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> [22:17] <pgkbot> Block editor  [[User:WikipediaAdmin2]] blocked by admin [[User:Jaranda]] Length: indefinite "Blocked2"  I like when people create stupid usernames
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: But if it spreads wouldn't that be evidence that it is a reasonable solution?
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> 30?
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> FCYTravis: Quite rightly
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Diseases spread, but that does not make them a panacea for man's ills. :)
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: or are you afraid that consensus on wikipedia will oppose you once people have tried it out and are not simply afraid of the new?
21:18 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul: what kind of SV do you want?
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - no, it's not. It's evidence that people are using them; it is not evidence that it is successful. Commons uses categories to do most of their organizing, and it is a DISASTER
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> just because it is used a lot doesn't make it successful
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NicholasT agrees with Raul654 
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> People actually use commons?
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Whatever for?
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> Buffy just accused Spike of cheating a kitten poker.
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NicholasT rolls his eyes at A_Man_In_Black 
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> someone reset my commons password yesterday, for the first time. lucky me.
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Voiceofall - hold on
21:19 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> OK :)
21:20 -!- Pathoschild [n=Pathosch@wikimedia/Pathoschild] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> A_Man_In_Black, people use Commons all the time to get around image deletions on enwiki.
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Hello there, Pathoschild.
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Tony: Oh, THAT'S what it's for.
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Voice_of_All -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178045&cid=14767973 -> this is a MUCH better solution that requires only small mediawiki changes
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Why do you think people would continue using it if it caused problems?
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - inertia.
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (duh)
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: People will often follow a status quo merely because it is a status quo. Take the xfDs - you couldn't possibly say they are well suited to their purpose
21:20 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: I don't agree that that proposal is better. As far as I can tell it would have no advantages.
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Nicholas - exactly
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: and PROD is a good improvement, but by no means a solution
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: You could simply place a revision link on the talk page for nearly the same effect.
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: That's not a bad idea, actually
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> It's pratically invisible on the talk page; I have no objections ot indicating on the development article that there is a stable version
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I have serious objections to displacing development articles with stable ones
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: and yet people would argue to keep xfDs exactly as you are arguing to keep pure development pages.
21:21 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Pathoschild> Hey
21:22 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: What advantage would a stable version offer in such a proposal?
21:22 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: how would it avoid the 'wrong version' concerns you expressed?
21:22 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: I do not see how it would provide any resisitance to simple vandalism. Am I missing something?
21:22 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (a) under my system, it would be impossible for the stable version to become a fork
21:22 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (under your proposal, it is not)
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: In respects, yes; but the nature of argument does not, I believe, make a prima facie determination over whether the argument is valid or not
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> yet when you say a separate domain for stable versions, that is even closer to a fork
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: It would require an admin to be a jerk, however. Your system can produce forks too with jerk admins, just as we can get them today.
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Danny - not if the alternative version is not editable
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> It would simply be a flag in the page history
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: What does your proposal offer that we don't have today?
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: when distilled, any argument could be compared to be similar to another issue in its same active thrust (as in, to keep something) but that does not mean there is no merit to the side being disputed, nor to the arguments of those disputing
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> There are *both* technically forks
21:23 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> but I don't care
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Voice_of_all - no, a fork can, by definition, become different than the original
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> a flagged version cannot
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: what we are all discussing is merely opinion, not empirical truth
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> in my system, the worst that could happen is people argue about which old version to flag
21:24 -!- ESkog [n=eric_s33@wikipedia/ESkog] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: sure a 'flagged version' can, just copy the page.. forks are always possible if people misbehave.
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: I'd support your proposal with one more thing (its the closest SV idea I've seen to what I really want)
21:24 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: if it had that one thing
21:25 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Voice - what is that?
21:25 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - copy the page?
21:25 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: a method to solidify the "stablize" button decisions
21:25 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: a simple way is to require 3 editors to agree
21:25 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: sure.. copy with mouse, hit edit this page somewhere else, paste..
21:25 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> yea
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: to require that the admin not be a serious editor to that page
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Tada fork.
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Voice - I thought about that. It's too bureacratic. Too much work
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> All you had to do is ignore our rules against making forks.
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Which is the same way a fork gets made in the stable versions now proposal.
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: You still haven't told me what your stable proposal would give us that we don't have on the site today.
21:26 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: But that happens anyway, stable versions now/other proposals or not
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: then the other way is to make Request for Editorship, and only let "editors" (user rights group) (though initially admins maybe) stabalize pages
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - my propsoal is a stable version without forks, which we DO NOT have on the site today
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: thats my argument.. the forking argument is moot because if people are jerks there can always be forks.
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Voice_of_All: Oh god, not another level of social propriety
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> your proposal's method for combating forks is a pound of wishful thinking
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: b/c many admins are either crazy or just vandal figters, AWB users
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: what is the advantage of a stable version off on another page.
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: nothing gives them the clear trust to "stabalize" unilateraly
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: You are right in the regard that there will always be forks; but that is not to say stabilisation will not increase the propensity for forking.
21:27 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> i think this discussion is profitless
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - that people are getting what they expect. If they go to WIKIpedia, they expect a wiki
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NotACow: you may be right
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> i see both sides basically insulting each other's proposals.
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: how is your proposal substantially different for our readers from inserting an perm revision link at the top of the development version?
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> forks shmork, who cares?
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> If they go to stable.wikipedia.org, they probably have some idea they are getting a stable revision
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first. Jimbo would be glad to remind you of this.
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> since it's in the name
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> WP:FORK is to stop shit like having two versions of opposing POV
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - and I will remind you that those 1.2 million article didn't appear out of thin air
21:28 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> Jesus was born in a stable.
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: And I don't know if you realize this, but most wikis on the internet today are not open to anon public editing.
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Mark_Ryan: Yes, but he wasn't moved somewhere else to be developed, lol
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> NicholasT, didn't they go to Egypt?
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: And I will remind you that before we had them we had nothing to make stable.
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Mark_Ryan: Well you could look at it like that
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> and back to nazareth
21:29 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> that means Jesus and Mary must have seen the pyramids and sphinx.
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> the Sphinx is not in the Bible. Therefore it does not exist.
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the point is this
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: do you trust admins enough to do that?
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Mark_Ryan: Also if Jesus was born in a Stable versions now, they'd be a clone of him: one at a nice, fixed point, and one where he's slightly older
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> we have 1.2 million articles
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> Dragonfly6-7, I think, therefore it does.
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> people who come to wikipedia for the most part do not care about editing
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: to unilaterialy stabalize and "approve" a page
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> they care about reliable information
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> which we cannot assure them they will receive
21:30 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> that is the criticism we most receive
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> not that GWB is locked
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: and to pages that may not even be oversighted much
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> we want to ensure that they can receive quality information
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> at least in some topics
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: I trust *most* admins maybe, but thats no good enough
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: We could if we merely included a link at the top of each page saying "To view a stable version of this page, click here". You are correct; but it is worth remembering the "wiki" bit of "Wikipedia", else we would just be called "pedia"
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Danny - nobody is disagreeing with any of that
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> dannyisme: the problem, as i see it, is that mark is more concerned about what serves HIS interests more than what serves WIKIPEDIA'S interests.....
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> Nicholas, what you are doing is making it more difficult for people
21:31 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: only some sort of "Editor" could do that unilateraly
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Mark_Ryan> can you all stop calling Raul654 "mark"? his first name is Raul (and his surname is 654)
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NotACow - stop trying to goad me. That's not at all the point and you very well know it
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> people dont want to go to a site and see, this is where you can play, if you want a stable version go elsewhere
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> people want easy answers
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> not steps
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> Raul654: i'm not trying to goad you.  i'm stating what apepars to me to be the case.
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> our first priority is giving information
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> editing is only the means to make that information available
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> it is not the end in itself
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> hence
21:32 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> our first page should be the stable version
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> But if stable versions chase off editors, we end up without information.
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the edit page is secondary
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: It is not the end in itself, but it is one vital component to the manner in which articles are written
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> ... and a large number (majority) of readers don't figure out they can edit... with edit buttons all over the page... and you expect them to find the stable version? :(
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> nicholas, we are writing articles to have them written
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the article is the goal, not the process of creating it
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> The people who need the stable version the most are the people least able to figure things out.
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: one of the things that has made Wikipedia as good a resource as it is has been the diverse range of contributors. But I agree with you, the article is the goal.
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> so lets put the article first
21:33 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Danny - that information can be given whether or not it is in the current location used for development or on a stable version
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> the process linked to it
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> However, we should not be presenting them a mixed bag
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> NicholasT: Hence, if there is a *good* article which is not controversial and is not being edit-warred, let's make that article stable.
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> thank you travis
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> NicholasT: The number of semiprotected articles is increasing.. and that will keep happening if semiprotection is the only way to dampen an unreasonable flood of harmful edits.
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> dannyisme: That said, however, the article being the goal also means we should encourage the working on the goal more
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> yes
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> however, occasionally we come damn close
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> NullC: Dependent on the article, yes
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> lets note that
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> lets show that
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> and semiprotection destroys the ability to edit for a majorty of people. :(
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Raul654: I like the simplicity of your proposal, but I'd rather a) that the botton would move the current page to wiki/draft/PAGE and make the /PAGE the stable version and b)that there was some oversight
21:34 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> I prefer to try this
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> NullC: and Voice of All restores it often :)
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> but let's do a 10 page sample
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> I'd fully support rauls if the devel version was not primary for readers...
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> I don't care what happens when you're logged in.
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> 'Primary' version is subjective.
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> is the stable version were so good
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> i am strongly opposed to the devel version being the default displayed version for casual readers
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> people would use that
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> I'd view that proposal with that change as being functionally equivlent to mine in the important regards.
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Aranda56> of the obvious vandalised FAs like [[Tony Blair]]
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> NullC: it really takes the bight out of the penis vandals
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> and it would become the 'primary' version
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> logged-in users should be able to select which they want as a personal preference
21:35 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Raul: They'd have to click through to get to the stable version.
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> You go into to Google and get [[Cheese]]
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> FCY - not necessarily
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Then see a HUGE "cock"
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> it depends on what link they click
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> FCYTravis: :( after seeing the hard throbbing cock. :(
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> if someone (like google) links to the stable versoin
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < dannyisme> essentially, people are stupid--they will not look to think that this is only the develoipment version not the stable version
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> they get the stable version
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> it may say "oh, and a stable page is here"...but the reader has likely left by now
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> and the stable verions could be made to link to each other
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: so if we coupled this with a proposal to adjust our robots so google only indexes stable pages? ;)
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC - no, let the internet decide which it wants
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> i think devel versons should be blocked from robots.
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> if they link to the development version, they get the dev version
21:36 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> or the reader comes in from Google, and reads EXTREME POV and there gone
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> if htey link to the stable, they get the stable
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * NicholasT sighs
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> *they're
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> or at least they should be blocked if there is a stable version
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> let google index both
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: You're not thinking this through.
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> yes!
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: say I want to see stable versions.. I follow my (stable) google link..
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> let Google index stable
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: now I follow a wikilink on the page..
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> and not non-stable if the page has a stable version
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: <@NotACow> Voice_of_All: what i just said
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> no more POV/penis crap
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> WOOPS GOATSE.. because I was not sent to the stable version.
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> yes
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> I just agree ")
21:37 -!- Amgine_ [n=Amgine@wikinews/Amgine] has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> :D
21:37 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Voice_of_All: But then we'll have a funny mix of stable and non-stable articles as the primary version
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> NullC  - as I just said, the stable versions link  to each other
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * kylu waveshi to Amgine
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> how so?
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (it would require a mediawiki tweak)
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Amgine_: Hello there!
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Amgine_> <waves @ kylu, NicholasT
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> click on a link in a stable version brings you to another stable version, if one exists
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Raul654: it would make link resolution non O(1)
21:38 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Incorrect
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> hmm. What do you think of  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViscidDirtyIndigenous ?
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Voice_of_All: Articles that have been stabilised will have the stable, protected version on top, but those that aren't will be editable. That means that it will be even less clear to new users that they can edit
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> stable versions would only check for the existance of another stable revision flag in an article
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> if implimented properly, the flag could be indexed in O(1) time
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Amgine_> Raul654: Would you mind terribly if I broke in here with a request for some of your expertise?
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> Okay, with a schema change.
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> NicholasT: good stable/non-stable tags should remidy this, if the people still can't figure it out, then I'd *rather* they not edit
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Amgine - I'm a phd in computer engineering
21:39 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> Its not *that* complicated
21:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I have some - albeit limited - understanding of databases
21:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Holy shit, Voice.
21:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Amgine_> <nod> But we have geeks. I need someone who has dealt with University Security over internet issues.
21:40 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> "If people can't figure it out they shouldn't edit" is about as unwiki as you can  get.
21:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Amgine_> And you were hoisted as the expert.
21:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Amgine - um, P/M me
21:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> AMIB: I think it's rather true, though.
21:41 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> (Amgine: I thought you were asking about my epxertise as it relates to the current topic in here)
21:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Or we could actually have |article|--<|revision|>--|stable| thus having multiple stable versions of one article at different dates
21:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> As long as we're not making it super-difficult or anything
21:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> BRB
21:42 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Ideally in stable versions, if someone clicks "edit this page" they'd be redirected automatically to edit the development version page
21:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> FCYTravis: That would, surely, be more confusing
21:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> We pretty much have that. The only edit button on the stable versions now page directs you (to view mode) on the development version.
21:43 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NullC> There is also a 'compare versions' difflink button right next to it that works fine.
21:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < FCYTravis> Nicholas: Just put a notice above the edit box. "The article you're trying to edit is stable. You may edit the development version below, request that the development version be updated or ask that the article be destabilized."
21:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> Damn.  I snowbaled the stupid Encyclopedia Dramatica DRV (absolutely massive support for deletion).  Badlydrawnjeff has reopened it.
21:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> Of course, you know what we all need to do to implement Stable versions now. Improve all articles on horses and horseracing, and list all the diffs. There, "stable" versions, lol
21:44 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> It's as if he was *determined* to keep these sores wide gaping open.
21:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < NicholasT> FCYTravis: It seems a bit convoluted, though
21:45 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Tony: You know, when you speedy close so much over objections, you shouldn't be surprised when people reverse you.
21:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> Bollocks
21:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> I speedy close absolutely foregone conclusions.
21:47 #wikipedia-en-admins:  * EWS23 rollsback vandalism on [[Cheese]]
21:47 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> I've seen you speedy close a DRV after three different admins reverted you. :P
21:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Dragonfly6-7> I only speedy close when it's unanimous
21:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> Process obsessive reverse them becase, well, they're obsessed with mindless, robotic, idiotic process.
21:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> A_Man_In_Black, show me. I don't think you'll find that.
21:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> A_Man_In_Black, I mean it. Show me.
21:48 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> Show me or withdraw that statement.
21:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> You know, it takes time to load pages. No need to repeat yourself.
21:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> I think it's a very poor idea for badlydrawnjeff to reopen the site that he's an admin at.
21:49 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> Talk about conflict of interest
21:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> man what a luser
21:50 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> He's not a luser though, he's a sysop.
21:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Man, DRV's history is a mess.
21:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> And we all know sysops never act odd
21:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Voice_of_All> :D
21:51 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Cyde> DRV is effing retarded.
21:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Tony_Sidaway> Cyde, badlydrawnjeff is one of the Encyclopedia Dramatica trolls?  Why am I not surprised?
21:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < A_Man_In_Black> Huh. Only two reverts. But more than three admins.
21:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> I need to go
21:54 #wikipedia-en-admins: < Raul654> Goodnight all