I suggest that a global variable be added, which states how old a revision can be (when not still the top rev) and override the default. That way, outdated quality revs won't always override newer stable ones.
<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>
From: "P. Birken" pbirken@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "Wikimedia Quality Discussions" wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Clearify some things Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:31:21 +0200
2007/4/29, R. S. Shaw shaww@inbox.com:
Against it is that recent versions remain hidden, even though not
vandalized, until someone puts in the effort to do a new inspection (and often editing) to produce a new, more recent, "Examined/Quality" version.
Yes, that's the problem. We have to keep in mind that no matter what the exact definition of "examined/reviewed" is, it will require more effort to tag than sighted. Since we are not really sure whether the tagging of versions as sighted will actually scale, I'm quite sure that tagging as examined will not. Thus, the usual situation will be the one mentioned by RS will be quite common. Therefore, I would suggest not giving examined precedence. This is also already part of the german proposal.
Bye,
Philipp
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John. Enter to win today. http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline