Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
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?
More or less. Whatever software scheme is used should be reasonably generic to be applicable to similar situations. For example, Votes for deletion, Votes for undeletion and Requests for adminship are all pages that work according to the same "express dissent within given timeframe or [x] happens" model. It would be most useful to have some generic voting queue module instead of a hack that is adjusted specifically to the sifting process.
Well, after my voting feature was removed at some point (I think during the change to Phase III), I am certainly not opposed to reintroducing it. But, I don't think it will work nicely for a "stable version" (or "1.0").
The arguments Erik gave for an "in-wikipedia" solution were: * no separate brand to the Wikipedia brand, no separate community - I don't see that happening.
* feedback from all Wikipedians, not just those specializing in the discipline in question -- besides being complete and accurate, articles also must be reasonably well written and easy to understand - Changes will still happen on wikipedia. Also, I propose that noone is restricted to certain topics; anyone can approve any article ;-) as long as s/he can be trusted to use common sense in what s/he is able to judge
* establishes trust in Wikipedia - changes still occur in wikipedia, so the content will be the same for any article at the time of approval. What happens next is up to wikipedia entirely...
* simple, easy to use and completely open - same as sifter, except that I would not let anons approve articles...
* requires only one change to the software (permalinks), which is useful anyway for external authors trying to provide a permanent reference to the revision of the Wikipedia article they cite - sifter requires *no* visible change to the wikipedia software. We *could* add an "approve this article" to be displayed as a user option, which would then link to the appropriate sifter page
Now to my "pro-sifter" list: * fully capsuled, like a language wikipedia, with its own images etc. Avoids problems of an "internal" solution, like: - Approve some version, which gets moved to "old" eventually - That "approved" article uses "xyz.jpg" - Someone replaced "xyz.jpg" with a goatse.cz image
* going to sifter.wikipedia.org (or whatever) means you're sure to get only approved stuff, while going to www.wikipedia.org is for those who write, and/or need complete and up-to-the-minute coverage
* user access is much easier to manage on a separate project
* sifter Recent Changes shows you only what was imported, while wikipedia Recent Changes shows you what was written. Imagine the clutter, otherwise.
* sifter yould reside on another server (we'll have another one soon, right?), with its own database etc., thus reducing/spreading load on wikipedia itself
* software is basically written, just needs a few more tweaks
Magnus