The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings
which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
On 24 December 2011 11:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
is
the link between an encyclopedia written by
experts, and an encyclopedia
that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
"encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
anywhere
productively on that issue, you should probably
start by explaining what
you see as the link.
That is very useful as an attempt at bridging the approaches to
encyclopaedia building. So just for the benefit of people joining us
lately, but keeping things to the issue at hand rather than getting
diverted...
There is no link.
But there is a grasping hand that wants to link, and wikipedia
does not do that for things that are not working.
The whole idea of making a "structure" around how you "approve"
(or "reify" or whatever) an edit is the nucleus of the issue. It has
failed, it will fail and no amount of trying to push on a string will
make it succeed.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation