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.

See my comments at Citable_versus_expert-approved_articles. Anthony.Sebastian 22:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)