Hiho
2007/4/27, Aaron Schulz <jschulz_4587(a)msn.com>om>:
OK, I don't like the idea of reducing all of the
tags to just one, it still
useful to have a depth/style rating, or any others. The idea is that sighted
revisions are just at minimal quality in each type.
The schema has been changed quite a bit, though I think I am satisfied with
how it is now.
Yes, that looks logically sound and like it will work.
Expert reviewed revisions take precedence over sighted
revisions.
Could you explain this?
By default we have the following classification:
*quality (expert reviewed): accuracy >= 2, depth >= 1, style >=1
*stable (sighted): accuracy >=1, depth >= 1, style >=1
Revisions cannot be reviewed unless each tag type is at least at level 1.
Reviewed revisions should at least be decent in each category, otherwise
reviewing them would look bad.
That would work, though I have problems imagining articles that fail
accuracy and depth 1.
I also thought that we might use this system to replace "Neutrality"-
or other tags. This would certainly improve things in the way that
editwars over these tags no longer disturb the version history.
However, replacing this with tagging wars is only a slight
improvement. Studid idea?
Bye,
Philipp