The untrusted users edit would not have been reviewed. So a good revert is all they need. When the next reviewer comes, it will prompt to review on edit with a diff. Since the bad stuff was reverted, their change would be the only think to review (cake).
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:41:36 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion of new text. ... it depends on the context.
The situation right now:
- Trusted user A makes an edit.
- Untrusted user B vandalizes.
- Trusted user A reverts.
- Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is
counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
This doesn't make sense; when a trusted user performs a revert to the most recently screened version, the newly created version should be sighted.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL10062697...