On 6/20/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. My long-term vision of a replacement for both protection and semi-protection is "quality protection", where the version you see is the last reviewed one, but the article remains fully editable. Following this strategy, we can make Wikipedia ever more openly editable, continuing the path we have already taken.
Erik
Problem is that kills one of wikipedia's main attractions.
The implementation is the tricky part. If you just want to cut out vandalism things probably wouldn't change much at all. Users that weren't logged in would see the latest version not marked as reviewed. Changes would likely be marked as reviewed very quickly (depending how many people had the power to mark as reviewed, which could very well be something like "just about every logged in user"). If someone with review power tries to edit a page with unreviewed edits you could even make first reviewing the change a required step. One variable though would be how much review is considered sufficient to mark a change as reviewed. Do sources have to be checked, or is just a quick "this isn't obvious vandalism" check enough? I suppose the ability to take away a user's review power without otherwise affecting that user would be useful for people who make too many review mistakes.
Of course there are more complicated review procedures which would cause a bigger, longer term split in the article. These probably would soften one of the main attractions of Wikipedia, but only one of them - it might even be worth it.
Anthony