Even if they do use preview, if they are editing just a section, which people often do, they still can't review any of the others.
I tried to make this so vandalism only gets in if the user didn't see it and accidentally reviewed it. Introduces automatic mechanism like this becomes more of a calculated risk.
That said, I can add a global variable to autoreview changes, such as: a) A new page by a reviewer/trusted user b) An edit to a page where it's current revision is the stable one too
As long as template/image vandalism is low and quickly reverted, I suppose it could be worth it.
-Aaron Schulz
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] Issues with FlaggedRevs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:01:20 +0200
2007/8/16, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
- As for new articles, it only takes one click to review it, and often
pages start off pretty rate, so some users may end up wanting to
unreview it
for a while then.
Every unnecessary click is one too many, as it will cause users not to use the system and/or to get annoyed. Usability is very important. As the threshhold for sighted is very low, I don't see a problem with this being done automatically. Having the first version of an article sighted will not protect from RfDs anyhow.
- I don't know what you must be referring to by "the creation of new
versions by trusted users in the case that the current version is
sighted.
Then, diffs are not needed for reviewing." Are you referring to a
trusted
user editing a page that is already sighted? Again, if they add a template/image, you cannot just take the current version of those templates/images and make them part of a sighted revision. If while I
was
adding an image to a reviewed page, as a reviewer, the image was vandalized, you'd end up with a bad stable version.
Well, yes, but what's the point. I can either use preview, or if I forgot, I simply create anoother version directly afterwards with the correct template. Having a template vandalized is rare, having users creating new versions happens all the time.
Bye,
Philipp
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] Issues with FlaggedRevs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:54:32 +0200
2007/8/15, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
What you cannot do is just have a diff shown on edit and have it
review
*and* save at the same time. As long is the review is done after the
save,
it's fine.
OK, but that's not a problem. The setting Erik and I are talking about are twofold, namely the creation of new articles by trusted users and the creation of new versions by trusted users in the case that the current version is sighted. Then, diffs are not needed for reviewing.
Bye,
Philipp
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us