Good points, Gregory.<br>
<br>
Regarding reverting back to anything other than the most recent sighted
version, yes, I agree your point is absolutely convincing.<br>
<br>
Regarding the possibility of missing potentially good edits when
reverting back to the most recent sighted version, I would suggest that
it depends on how far along the continuum between accuracy and
completeness we are going to choose to live.<br>
<br>
If we wanted the best, most complete picture, then we should never show
a sighted version due to the risk of missing some good information (ala
wiki now). Of course, we do _not_ want that, otherwise we would not be
having this project. So, how much potential lost information is
allowable and how much is not? I am not certain that the risk of losing
some of the most recent information, which is still in the history, and
which may be pure vandalism, outweighs the apparent need to have a
large selection of stable articles.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
--Avi<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Gregory Maxwell</b> <<a href="mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">gmaxwell@gmail.com
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 10/9/07, Avi <<a href="mailto:avi.wiki@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">avi.wiki@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled, but
<br>> while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor
<br>> reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.<br>><br>> Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of itself<br>> sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person performing
<br>> the revision?<br>><br>> Or am I missing something?<br><br>Imagine that a user reverts to a year old sighted version and we mark<br>the new version as sighted. This would result in a decreased amount<br>of review of the edit and as a result this bad change may go unnoticed
<br>for a longer span of time. Clearly that isn't good.<br><br>What if we only preserve the flagging if they revert to the most<br>recent? There too we may miss the chance to catch a reversion of good<br>material. And in this case if the default view were the sighted
<br>revision it moving the pointer really wouldn't help.<br><br>Do these points convince you that the current behavior is better than<br>your proposal?<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>en:User:Avraham
<br>----<br>pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <<a href="mailto:aviwiki@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">aviwiki@gmail.com</a>><br> Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229