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(a)wikimedia.org
To: wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller
<erik(a)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:
1) Trusted user A makes an edit.
2) Untrusted user B vandalizes.
3) Trusted user A reverts.
4) 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now.