When I say "precedence", I mean that if there is an examined and a mere
stable version for page, the examined one is the default page. If that
revision is depreciated/deleted, then the stable version would then be the
As for the oddness at
tags seem to be misconfigured there, as accuracy 1 counts as quality.
I'd stick to using
From: "P. Birken" <pbirken(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions <wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: "Wikimedia Quality Discussions" <wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Clearify some things
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:09:19 +0200
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
useful to have a depth/style rating, or any
others. The idea is that
revisions are just at minimal quality in each
The schema has been changed quite a bit, though I think I am satisfied
how it is now.
Yes, that looks logically sound and like it will work.
Expert reviewed revisions take precedence over
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
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?
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate