I'd only use test.wikipedia for testing it, I have no idea how up to date the QA wiki is.
Also, *what* about it is confusing specifically?
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 14/01/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Flagged revisions is an important, beneficial change that everybody wants. There *is* a difference (I hope).
Well, proof of the pudding, I tried it out on the wikiQA server.
Basically:
- it gives semiprotection-like features to an article, but that are
permanent, as in a lot of people's edits may not appear for indefinite periods, if people don't feel they are making a contribution, they won't
- the UI is confusing (as in the software did weird things that were not
obvious, and I'm a software engineer, if it's not obvious to me it's probably a bad idea, if setting an article in a weird mode confuses me, then imagine what joe user would think)
- the QA server didn't work as advertised on described features e.g.
people didn't get automatically promoted to be able to do QA, but the documentation implied it would happen (a bug or misconfigured)
- the QA server gave whole new ways for guys like WillyOnWheels to
vandalise
It seems overcomplicated and rather overambitious, and not especially well thought out.
If it ever works it will be because of a whole bunch of extra bots, processes and admin leg work; and a lot more developer graft.
I'd say this could be a disaster; I'm hoping not, but I'm not betting either way.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l