I'm not sure about two issues.
1) In the box used for reviewing, a checkbox for watching the page is
provided. I'm not sure we need that in the box in the first place, but
at least it should swap places with the comment box, since the comment
box belongs functionally to the upper part of the box.
2) I'm also not convinced about the usefuleness of the "stable
version" button next to the article button. This is what the GUI also
does and therefore, users have two ways of doing stuff, whereas both
GUIs are more powerful. Shouldn't we remove that button? Also, the
number of buttons has become quite large already, in particular for
users with a lot of rights?
It's been considered. I've never really got the reasons for it though. Who
determines whether the stable version is the default or not? I don't like it
being sysops, and if is 'sighters'/whatever, then what would that really
accomplish? If the issue is that is would get outdated, then people
shouldn't review things no one will follow up on enough.
It also requires another table just to store whether to make the stable
version the default. Plus, it makes the interface more complicated and what
version is the default seems more random and confusing to readers.
Also, please use wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org for stable versions stuff
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
>Subject: stable versions... a few thoughts
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:50:49 -0400
>I think it is absolutely (absolutely!) imperative that stable versions has
>to be enabled and disabled per-page, like protection or semi-protection.
>If it is not, then there is just absolutely no way it will ever go on
>English Wikipedia - and not likely anywhere else either.
>Is that contemplated? Can we make sure it does that?
Now you can see trouble before he arrives
I'm trying out FlaggedRevs to see how far we are from deployment. I'm
seeing the following issues right now (local install, default
* Diffs that are not to the current revision point to the wrong
version. (i.e. the review panel at the bottom will tag the current
revision, even if neither of the two revs are current).
* Edits by users who can review should not need to be reviewed at
least at the basic level; is there any way to configure this? It seems
pointless to flag edits by trusted users as being in need for
* When the last sighted version and the current version are identical,
anon users (if so configured) still have to click through to the
"current" (identical) version to edit. This seems an unnecessary hoop
to jump through.
These seem like core issues to me. In addition, some wishlist items:
* In the original specs we suggested that users can approve unreviewed
changes with a collapsible diff + checkbox on the actual edit page
when editing an unreviewed version; this still seems like a very
simple way to integrate review into normal editing workflow.
* Switching the default view for all non-registered visitors would be
a very radical thing to do when we haven't figured out yet how
scalable the system is. Changes might end up being unreviewed for
weeks as a result, rendering articles about current events unusable
and making it much harder for new users to discover the site. It seems
more sensible to change the default view on a per-page basis for some
highly problematic pages which are currently semi-protected, and to
gradually increase the number of pages that are in this mode.
I'll try to come up with some more feedback regarding the UI.
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
following the advice of both Erik and me, Sue Gardner has decided that
we should move on to an open Betatest. This test will take place on
some testserver of the foundation, soon after Brion or Tim have given
their OK on the security of the extension, hopefully in about one or
So, let's try and apply some pre-beta finishing touch to this :-)
I just testes the template stuff and I think there is a problem.
Namely that if you change a template, you have to create a new version
of all articles it appears in to make the change visible. This renders
templates a bit useless. Hardwiring stable versions with the templates
as they were is a good feature to me, but I think we definitely should
make exceptions for the current version.
Bye, the next week I'll have limited email access,