Erik Moeller wrote:
See the thread "Do we really need a Sifter
project?"
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-July/011072.html
on Wikipedia-L for a process which does not require special privileges
other than for the final approval (similar to the deletion process).
I think this is sensible, but of course your caveat of 'other than for
the final approval' might still generate some concerns about there
being special privileges or whatnot.
In order to make it convenient for people to follow the kind of
process that you describe, would you advocate some minor software
changes, i.e. a simple button-click for people to nominate things to
the 'candidates' page?
And then perhaps, knowing that you're fond of voting ;-), a simple
button-click for people to register an opinion on each article, with
some kind of rules (unanimity, 4/5ths majority, 2/3rds majority,
minimum number of yesses over nos, that sort of thing) determining the
move to the 'elected' page?
And then those articles would be the 1.0 articles, subject perhaps to
final FINAL approval if we found that to be necessary?
I could tweak the rules over time to balance quality versus quantity
of production. If it looks like too much questionable stuff is making
it through, the voting rules could be made more strict. If it looks
like we're moving way too slow, then the voting rules could be made
more lax.
And perhaps, but I'm getting ahead of what we need to really agree on
right now, there needs to be a way for anyone to raise an appeal,
within reason, on any article that gets to the end of the process --
thus preserving the ability for anyone, even at a fairly late date, to
find an egregious error and be able to send an article back to the
approval stage.
I could get behind something like that.
--Jimbo