I'm just testing the latest FlaggedRevs code to see what kind of configurations we should set up for Wikimedia. Thanks to Aaron for continuing to work on it. FYI, we'll have a face-to-face meeting in the Wikimedia office next week with Brion, myself, Philipp Birken & Luca de Alfaro (Aaron can't make it) to discuss some of the open issues.
From what I can tell, the current code will still show a link to the
sighted version, even if current & sighted are fully identical. I consider this highly confusing behavior, and I don't really see that we can go live with this, even as an experiment.
Is there any option regulating this behavior, or another way around it?
If not: I would really like us to figure out a solution to this. I do believe the situation where a page is current and sighted (and where any included templates are unmodified from the sighted state, or have been edited by trusted users & auto-reviewed), will be quite common, because this is after all the situation we're trying to optimize towards. A UI that makes a fully reviewed version look unreviewed seems like a major problem to me.
I'm certainly not a PHP expert, and I'm not familiar with this extension per se, but it would seem to me that detecting whether the current version was also sighted would be as easy as comparing revision ids. If the current ID and the currently sighted ID are identical, don't show the link.
Maybe I'm over-simplifying, and sighted revisions are not marked according to revision number, like I said I'm not familiar with this code.
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/1/31, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
From what I can tell, the current code will still show a link to the sighted version, even if current & sighted are fully identical. I consider this highly confusing behavior, and I don't really see that we can go live with this, even as an experiment.
You're right, I also stumbled upon that. Although I disagree with the very last point, for the open beta, the current version is completely OK.
If not: I would really like us to figure out a solution to this. I do believe the situation where a page is current and sighted (and where any included templates are unmodified from the sighted state, or have been edited by trusted users & auto-reviewed), will be quite common, because this is after all the situation we're trying to optimize towards. A UI that makes a fully reviewed version look unreviewed seems like a major problem to me.
The text still needs some tweaking anyhow. In the case that the current version is reviewed/sighted, the text tates for IPs: "This is the latest sighted revision, approved on 1 February 2008. The draft can be modified; 0 changes await review. (+/-)". This should be changed to "This is the current version. It is sighted/reviewed, approved on 1 February 2008.", since the confusing part are the 0 changes awaiting review and it is much shorter. I don't know about the icon-based case.
For users, the current text is "The latest sighted revision (list all) was approved on 1 February 2008. 0 changes need review. (+/-)", which should be changed to the same: "This is the current version. It is sighted/reviewed, approved on 1 February 2008." By the way, what is the reasoning for users and IP seeing different text?
Best,
Philipp
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org