5 ms·
There should be a way for the readers of wiki to know which sections have been there for a while (therefore probably more accurate), and which parts are frequen
by dyu 19y ago
There should be a way for the readers of wiki to know which sections have been there for a while (therefore probably more accurate), and which parts are frequently changed (therefore more debatable), so that they can get a better picture of the reliability of those information.
- mynameishere 19y agoI've often thought that certain revisions should be marked as "more-or-less correct" meaning that there is no vandalism or any obvious mistakes. A cookie could be placed for readers who only want to read such versions. This might mean that there's one-more-damn-thing to constantly administer, but it would keep cross dressing pictures off the GWB page. (Oh, wait, that really happened...)
- qaexl 19y agoOr at the very least citations should include a specific revision. When citing from a journal or a book, you always include the revision image (publisher, edition, year-published). The idea is to allow the reader to check up on your sources rather than fulfilling some arbitrary administrative requirement (homework). As I mentioned above, that points out the teachers' rather than the students' competence. We could compile together the list of suggestions generated here in this discussion, open up a new Wikipedia page on how to actually cite and use Wikipedia. Then get the word out.