Wikipedia talk:Baseline revision

What is meant by "acknowledged expertise"? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... a bit nebulous, huh? Have modified. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This looks like another attempt at editorial boards. I suggest something like m:Article validation feature, which is a ratings feature for given article versions (the thing I'm pushing really hard for Wikipedia 1.0). That way, the highly-rated versions emerge from the wiki process (which scales), rather than from editorial boards (which don't) - David Gerard 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, scalability sounds wonderful. Thanks for informing us of that, David. Courtland 14:31, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

It's a good idea, however it has flaws. For instance, the majority might get it wrong. It's happened before. This is a more detailed process. It finds a good copy of the article to make it a reliable source of information. That's all I'm trying to do here. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia OmniMusica. Tuf-Kat

I don't think the idea of identifying a "particularly qualified person" to have more "authority" over an article is going to fly, even in a watered-down form. It's true "the majority" gets it wrong, but so do editorial boards and experts. Whatever form this takes is going to have to be some kind of vote/consesus process, I'm thinking.

I also think that "baseline" is a little charged as a name, since it makes changes to it sound like deviations from an ideal. How about calling it "Asfeatured" instead? It gets across that this is the version of the article that made it to FA status, and provides a level of indirection for (e.g.) a script that wants collate all the "best" versions (by this definition).

Changes to the "Asfeatured" version would head to WP:FAC as normal, just with a note that they wouldn't be re-featured on the page. All the FAC interestees can comment in the normal manner, and if the new article would qualify for FA status again, the "Asfeatured" pointer can be advanced.

This also takes care of the fact that editorial standards may have improved over time. Demi ^T/_C 05:49, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Absolutely. We can change the name of the page soon... that will probably be as good a name as any. The vote sounds good. The point behind this experiment is to have some sort of peer review and a "stamped" article reversion where all objections are cleared up on a static version of the page. We can refer to the page as the best page, it's like FAC only on a static page. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)