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outdated quality revs won't always override newer stable ones.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(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions <wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: "Wikimedia Quality Discussions" <wikiquality-l(a)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(a)inbox.com>om>:
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(a)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.