CZ Talk:Election July-August 2013/Referenda/7
I oppose this, for basically the same reason as Ref 6: it lowers standards. Peter Jackson 10:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Peter, will you explain to me why you think ref/7 lowers standards. Anthony.Sebastian 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- It switches the default. Currently, in the few cases where we have an expert-approved article, that is the default that readers see. Your proposal would replace that with what, in a worst-case scenario, might be a wiki free-for-all version. Or it might be a version directed by non-specialists, such as the ME or EC.
- But remember I'm in favour of time-limiting approvals. Peter Jackson 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have two orders of magnitude greater numbers of non-approved Main Articles than approved ones. Switching the default would have little impact. Besides, the few approved articles we have would be the first subpage as a "Citable Version" with an appropriate qualifier textbox indicating its status. And even when we have thousands of expert-approved articles in the Citable Version subpage, any one can be re-versioned as the editable Main Article improves upon it.
A possibility this opens up. We might have more than one citable article. In that case the tab would go to a menu. Peter Jackson 13:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you are referring more than one Citable Version of an editable Main Article, owing to re-approval of the editable Main Article, that would make me happy. It means the Citable Version has been improved upon, otherwise the re-edited editable Main Article would not have been re-approved.
- We will use a versioning method with permanent links to each version, so people who read documents that have cited one of the versions can access it for the source of whatever the document's author(s) cited it for. Anthony.Sebastian 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- What I was thinking of was different expert perspectives, like signed articles. Peter Jackson 10:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Peter, do you mean that for any given Main Article and/or Citable Version we might have one or multiple Signed Articles? Anthony.Sebastian 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Signed articles (have we actually got any?) are presumably citable and locked. The Council could explore possible classifications of such pages. Peter Jackson 10:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)