As it is planned, the feature is simply too intrusive. Once an article is flagged as "sighted", there is no way back.
I have to wonder whether this is a valid concern or not? I have not read all the documentation, so forgive this post if it's totally ignorant. It has been my assumption that FlaggedRevs would allow us to flag an article, unflag an article, or update a flag on an artical. Ie, an article that has been flagged previously should be able to have that flag removed and the most current revision of the page displayed by default. Is this the case?
--Andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ More photos; more messages; more whatever – Get MORE with Windows Live™ Hotmail®. NOW with 5GB storage. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr...
2007/9/24, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com:
As it is planned, the feature is simply too intrusive. Once an article is flagged as "sighted", there is no way back.
I have to wonder whether this is a valid concern or not? I have not read all the documentation, so forgive this post if it's totally ignorant. It has been my assumption that FlaggedRevs would allow us to flag an article, unflag an article, or update a flag on an artical. Ie, an article that has been flagged previously should be able to have that flag removed and the most current revision of the page displayed by default. Is this the case?
No, this is indeed a valid concern. A feature that allows to unflag an article is not included. Unflagging sort of happens by creating a new version and flagging that one instead. So, once an article has been flagged, it is "in the system". However, initially no article is flagged.
Nevertheless, In the limit, when you assume that every article has been flagged, every edit by non-editors (IPs and recently created accounts) would have to be flagged or reverted in a reasonable amount of time. This is the question of scaling. Does a wiki manage this? Then everything is fine. If not, then either the software will have to be improved in this aspect (which will be one of the goals of the Beta) or you shouldn't use this setting of flagged revisions. In particular young wikis should simply not use it.
As for other settings, there currently is simply the setting to always show the current version, but still links to sighted or quality versions. As Erik said, in the future there will also be a per-page-feature that allows to toggle the default view per page.
Bye,
Philipp
On 9/24/07, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Does a wiki manage this? Then everything is fine. If not, then either the software will have to be improved in this aspect (which will be one of the goals of the Beta) or you shouldn't use this setting of flagged revisions. In particular young wikis should simply not use it.
[snip]
and as I pointed out recently: if the wiki can not manage it that would mean a great many edits are going completely without review. That would be a very bad thing for a highly read Wiki (like the primary language editions of Wikipedia), and arguably an unethical situation.
If a popular project can't keep up with the reviewing then we need to solve that problem.
I'm not too worried. If a popular project really couldn't keep up with reviewing in a timely fashion the projects would be saturated with vandalism. Flagging should make reviewing more efficient, so we should have confidence.
2007/9/24, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On 9/24/07, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Does a wiki manage this? Then everything is fine. If not, then either the software will have to be improved in this aspect (which will be one of the goals of the Beta) or you shouldn't use this setting of flagged revisions. In particular young wikis should simply not use it.
[snip]
and as I pointed out recently: if the wiki can not manage it that would mean a great many edits are going completely without review. That would be a very bad thing for a highly read Wiki (like the primary language editions of Wikipedia), and arguably an unethical situation.
If a popular project can't keep up with the reviewing then we need to solve that problem.
I'm not too worried. If a popular project really couldn't keep up with reviewing in a timely fashion the projects would be saturated with vandalism. Flagging should make reviewing more efficient, so we should have confidence.
Well, I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's nothing more to say on that note :-)
Cheers,
Philipp
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'm not too worried. If a popular project really couldn't keep up with reviewing in a timely fashion the projects would be saturated with vandalism. Flagging should make reviewing more efficient, so we should have confidence.
What would really be neat is a variant of special:randompage that only returns pages whose latest revision is unreviewed. I'm sure there'll be list pages for that sort of thing but jumping around randomly makes things seem less like "work" to me.
2007/9/25, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
What would really be neat is a variant of special:randompage that only returns pages whose latest revision is unreviewed. I'm sure there'll be list pages for that sort of thing but jumping around randomly makes things seem less like "work" to me.
That's right, that sounds neat.
Bye,
Philipp
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org