Good points, Gregory.
Regarding reverting back to anything other than the most recent sighted version, yes, I agree your point is absolutely convincing.
Regarding the possibility of missing potentially good edits when reverting back to the most recent sighted version, I would suggest that it depends on how far along the continuum between accuracy and completeness we are going to choose to live.
If we wanted the best, most complete picture, then we should never show a sighted version due to the risk of missing some good information (ala wiki now). Of course, we do _not_ want that, otherwise we would not be having this project. So, how much potential lost information is allowable and how much is not? I am not certain that the risk of losing some of the most recent information, which is still in the history, and which may be pure vandalism, outweighs the apparent need to have a large selection of stable articles.
Thanks,
--Avi
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled,
but
while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.
Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of
itself
sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person
performing
the revision?
Or am I missing something?
Imagine that a user reverts to a year old sighted version and we mark the new version as sighted. This would result in a decreased amount of review of the edit and as a result this bad change may go unnoticed for a longer span of time. Clearly that isn't good.
What if we only preserve the flagging if they revert to the most recent? There too we may miss the chance to catch a reversion of good material. And in this case if the default view were the sighted revision it moving the pointer really wouldn't help.
Do these points convince you that the current behavior is better than your proposal?