Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Content-Versioning: Difference between revisions
Remove hard {{NotApproved}} notice (redundant with auto-generated ApprovedRevs notice) — Theo request 2026-06-20 |
Add missing intros per Theo's 20s rule |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards multilingual wiki governance through admin-validated translation workflows and hierarchical contract architectures. This hypothesis proposes that synchronizing canonical English content via FlaggedRevs and AI-assisted automatic translation, combined with two-level contract models separating generic from jurisdiction-specific provisions, can prevent content divergence while maintaining legal integrity across distributed governance systems.}} | |||
{{KidsIntro|this page explains how WikiDeal saves every old version of a page, so you can always see what changed and go back if needed.}} | {{KidsIntro|this page explains how WikiDeal saves every old version of a page, so you can always see what changed and go back if needed.}} | ||
| Line 91: | Line 93: | ||
* '''Multiple linguistic formulations''' may co-exist (e.g., a formal legal version and a plain-language summary) — but the ''legal substance'' must be identical across all formulations. | * '''Multiple linguistic formulations''' may co-exist (e.g., a formal legal version and a plain-language summary) — but the ''legal substance'' must be identical across all formulations. | ||
* The '''distinction between Generic and Specific contracts''' is the primary mechanism for preventing unnecessary forks: local needs are accommodated within the Specific Contract layer, not by creating new Generic templates. | * The '''distinction between Generic and Specific contracts''' is the primary mechanism for preventing unnecessary forks: local needs are accommodated within the Specific Contract layer, not by creating new Generic templates. | ||
* If a fork is proposed, it must go through an process for community evaluation. The Open | * If a fork is proposed, it must go through an process for community evaluation. The Open Calls allow the community to assess whether the proposed fork addresses a genuinely unmet need or whether the existing architecture can accommodate it. | ||
* The '''Generic Contract is the single source of truth''' — Specific Contracts inherit from it and must not contradict its core provisions. | * The '''Generic Contract is the single source of truth''' — Specific Contracts inherit from it and must not contradict its core provisions. | ||
* Conflicts between Specific Contracts and the Generic Contract are resolved in favour of the Generic Contract unless an explicit jurisdiction-specific override has been formally approved. | * Conflicts between Specific Contracts and the Generic Contract are resolved in favour of the Generic Contract unless an explicit jurisdiction-specific override has been formally approved. | ||
| Line 110: | Line 112: | ||
| Talk / Discussion pages | | Talk / Discussion pages | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Bonding Curve / | | Bonding Curve / Need-Driven Funding / Rewards (fundamental mechanisms) | ||
| Open Call proposals | | Open Call proposals | ||
|- | |- | ||