User:Bert Niehaus/2017/Contribution2Wikipedia

Contribution to Reliability on Wikipedia

 * Link to Version Difference
 * Comment of User:DKquerty: "Complete Nonsense"

Content Diff

 * Wikiversity:Public-Private-Versioning: Keep the freedom of wiki editing for the community and create beyond quality assurance of the wiki community a parallel read-only versioning branches of
 * organisation (e.g. WHO),
 * agencies,
 * academic institutions or departments with widely recognized scientific and technical expertise (e.g. MIT)

Analysis

 * "Complete Nonsense" is not constructive.
 * Version Control is part of Wikipedia, Wikiversity, ... and used with more features for source code version control with Subversion, Mercury, Git, ....
 * Users install e.g. a private git on computers doing the same thing without community participation or develop in team with sharing the code with a larger community. These workflows are used since Version Control was applied in software development. It is obvious that not all developed software products, documents can be Open Source and Open Content.
 * WHO develop course material Clean Care Safer Care . Development of material follows an evolutionary process and experts are involved in the development of content. Version control can be handle very simple with many version of files. The key in the development of course material is that alterations of the content are not possible and the versioning of content is "private" then. Public-Private-Versioning links public and private development branches. Also this a common workflow if you declare a private repository as public. A quality assured version remains for example on the official website.
 * Was the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) violated?
 * No indicators found for that in content alteration.
 * it mentions existing technological approaches.
 * Maybe putting public-private-versioning together with dashes has other pre-defined semantics that I am not aware of. But evidence not found.

Conclusion
Difficult to understand what is "complete nonsense" in that comment. So it is difficult to derive improvements from that. If no improvements are possible, then leave the Wikipedia resource as it was before. Seems that the concept of Swarm intelligence and constructive collaborative content evolution is difficult to implement in that resource. Maybe just the "Good faith" assumption was not applied here.