2009/9/27 Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1 minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of articles that really need it.
All of this implies some sort of well thought out and implement workflow functionality in Wikipedia. Do we have this? Do we have real queues of articles to be reviewed and automatic processes that highlight articles that have been waiting too long? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I had the impression that with stuff like vandal fighting and new page monitoring, each editor essentially acts independently of any others, meaning there is a lot of doubling up of work...and some pages slip through the cracks.
Do we have any way of combatting this with flagged revisions?
Yes. [[Special:OldReviewedPages]] contains a list of pages that have been reviewed at least once but have been edited since the last review, people just need to work through that list in order. Hopefully the people that write tools like Huggle will update them to take things edits out of that list to be checked.
There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need to keep an eye on it. It is possible that having all articles under review will actually result in quicker reviews since all the RC-patrollers can just move over to ORP-patrol.