Jimmy Wales wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
It would be nice if we had a feature of the software for this reviewing thing. It could give a random page from a subset of wikipedia yet to be reviewed, and then you'd edit it. After editing it, you would say if it is britannica-quality yet. If two people said yes for the same article, it would be taken out of the subset of articles to be reviewed.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
While that might be a nice feature, I'd like to go to some page (say, [[Biology]]), and see which articles *that are linked from there* are approved and which are not. That way, I can move through a field where I know I can give approvals (or fix it first).
Which brings me inevitably back to the sifter project, where one could see unapproved articles just by looking for red/"?" links.
Also, we'd automatically approve a specific version of an article, which is then copied to the sifter. Edits would have to be made on wikipedia first, if necessary.
The sifter would, at the end of the project, automatically contain what Jimbo called the "e" version. If that's different from "p" in version 1.0, we'll have to see.
A 2.0 project could be started with a copy of sifter 1.0, or a clean sifter.
Best of all, it would technically run indepentently of the wiki, maybe on a different server. If we force the approval process into wikipedia itself, that wikipedia (en, at the moment) will inevitably suffer speed losses from all the approval work.
Last not least, software changes will be much easier just opening a sifter, with an additional special page (for importing), and enhanced user permission management (no edits on the sifter, editors need some approval to work there, etc.)
Magnus