Also, when you revert, all of the current versions of the images/templates become the permanent ones for that stable version. So a user reverting to a good version with bad templates would be reviewed.

-Aaron Schulz

> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:23:42 -0400
> From: gmaxwell@gmail.com
> To: aviwiki@gmail.com; wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version
>
> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

---

Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! Try now!