On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 05:45:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
This alone is already a kind of certification process, but it lacks one component that the Sifter project provides, namely, the establishment of trust by only linking to "safe" revisions of an article. This could be integrated into the Brilliant Prose process relatively easily.
As far as I know currently articles only evolve and don't get worse! So linking to the current version shouldn't be a mistake. Spam and keyboard tests are undone quickly by us Admins. I'd suggest that changes in BPs should get an own recent changes so we can control them easier.
I would personally prefer if a process was in place that if a consensus cannot be reached within a timeframe, the page is added to a list of "Current negotiations", where again, for a period of 7 days, people would be invited to suggest compromises and if that *also* fails, a vote is held on the matter. This is to avoid problems like on the VfD page, where sysops are given quite a lot of room for interpretation if a "consensus" has been reached, and pages often linger without a decision for days or even weeks.
A few days ago I suggested at the German a voting system, like 5 admins or 20 user yes-votes (for German WP) and the article goes from the candidate list to the brilliant prose page. It could be automated and also the links to BP could be marked with a star so the reader knows that this link is BP. A new table for the BP would be necessary I think.
- 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
If we introduce them, can we have <a href="#top3"> too?