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