On 21/06/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)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
--
-Ian Woollard
"Victory can be perceived but not created."