On 21/06/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, a basic copyright check might require only a time delay, while stating the accuracy of an article might require one or two other editors to confirm the claim PLUS a time delay.
It already sounds way too complicated to me. The more complicated you make it, the more unintended consequences there are likely to be, the more failure modes there are and the more unwieldy it gets to edit the Wikipedia.
We *want* people to contribute to the Wikipedia, it got where it is today by being incredibly quick and easy to edit.
Adding some review process to the wikipedia, which may never, ever finish?? Why?
It's not like the Wikipedia is employing people to edit it. They don't ever have to sign anything off. And once you realise that, you realise that there has to be a timeout somewhere, because they can always go away, and then you start wondering why you need more complication than just delaying stuff a bit on a timeout, and informing editors of edits and letting them deal with it.
At the end of the day, it's the editors that make the wikipedia what it is, all we can do is empower them to improve it. Process can guide, but it won't do it.
Erik