Hey, everybody, in the excitement of the recent discussion over Mav & Timwi & Angela's idea of version marking, we seem to have overlooked something!
Magnus Manke has quietly developed a full-fledged scheme of his own, and you can see a Working Demo of this at:
http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Validate&mode=list_p age
I just read and evaluated two articles!!
C'mon, let's give credit where credit is due!
Ed Poor Developer Emeritus
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Hey, everybody, in the excitement of the recent discussion over Mav & Timwi & Angela's idea of version marking, we seem to have overlooked something!
Magnus Manke has quietly developed a full-fledged scheme of his own, and you can see a Working Demo of this at:
http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Validate&mode=list_p...
I just read and evaluated two articles!!
C'mon, let's give credit where credit is due!
This validation system Magnus Manske developed is indeed quite impressive. However, it is too bulky to use as a simple Recent Changes patrol system. It is infinitely more suited for long-term voting on which articles are good, which articles require attention, etc. etc.
I view the two things as separate features which both serve different purposes.
Timwi
On 08/10/04 16:08, Timwi wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Hey, everybody, in the excitement of the recent discussion over Mav & Timwi & Angela's idea of version marking, we seem to have overlooked something! Magnus Manke has quietly developed a full-fledged scheme of his own, and you can see a Working Demo of this at: http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Validate&mode=list_p...
This validation system Magnus Manske developed is indeed quite impressive. However, it is too bulky to use as a simple Recent Changes patrol system. It is infinitely more suited for long-term voting on which articles are good, which articles require attention, etc. etc. I view the two things as separate features which both serve different purposes.
Certainly. Though viewing your 'Validated' as a tick-box in Magnus' scheme would give useful information at a glance.
That said ... after pushing so hard for a validation/review scheme, I'd like to see a lot more discussion on it :-) Specifically:
* is it appropriate to all Wikipedias in its present form? (What works on en may not be the right thing on de or sr.) * What should the fields be? * What bad effects could this have?
(For the last, let me suggest: vote spamming for a partisan version.)
I'd love to see actual discussion of problems, big or small, before it's implemented, so as to make it as workable as possible before it goes live. As such, I've crossposted and set followup to wikipedia-l, because this would affect every Wikipedia.
- d.