Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Yes, it won't necessarily lower the workload, but it would certainly improve the quality of our articles.
Mgm
How? The quality of the articles is exactly equal if someone puts them into a queue and you delete it or someone creates it and you delete it.
Without making any comment on the merits of the specific proposal at hand (it sounds great to me, but then again I haven't thought it through enough yet), I can answer this question...
The question is what happens in the case of an overlooked article? What happens when the New Pages Patrollers get behind or there is a gap in coverage?
The default failure mode of the patrolling process today says "Anything we don't look at, we assume is good enough to go on the site" -> Seigenthaler. The proposed failure mode of the patrolling process says "Anything we don't look at, we leave it in the queue until someone gets around to it." If the queue of new articles by newbies is time-stamp sorted, then we will often be only a few minutes behind, sometimes maybe an hour.
Now, this need not necessarily be done with a queue or a gateway model. Another idea in the same general area is the long-desired 'check off' model for collaborative RC/new pages patrolling.
As I already offered somewhere else, I could modify my "Tasks" extension to * automatically flag every new article with a "checkme" task * automatically flag edits that delete a huge amount of text with a "check for vandalism" task These are just examples, I could add lots more here (low "[[" to bytes ratio = unwikified :-)
If I add this, some assurance that the extension would be used some day would be nice, though. I'll probably end up rewriting the validation feature, and the stable version feature seems to be obsolete due to parallel development. Please, not again.
Magnus