I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled, but while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.
Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of itself sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person performing the revision?
Or am I missing something?
Thanks,
--Avi
On 10/9/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled, but while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.
Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of itself sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person performing the revision?
Or am I missing something?
Imagine that a user reverts to a year old sighted version and we mark the new version as sighted. This would result in a decreased amount of review of the edit and as a result this bad change may go unnoticed for a longer span of time. Clearly that isn't good.
What if we only preserve the flagging if they revert to the most recent? There too we may miss the chance to catch a reversion of good material. And in this case if the default view were the sighted revision it moving the pointer really wouldn't help.
Do these points convince you that the current behavior is better than your proposal?
Also, when you revert, all of the current versions of the images/templates become the permanent ones for that stable version. So a user reverting to a good version with bad templates would be reviewed.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:23:42 -0400 From: gmaxwell@gmail.com To: aviwiki@gmail.com; wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version
On 10/9/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled, but while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.
Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of itself sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person performing the revision?
Or am I missing something?
Imagine that a user reverts to a year old sighted version and we mark the new version as sighted. This would result in a decreased amount of review of the edit and as a result this bad change may go unnoticed for a longer span of time. Clearly that isn't good.
What if we only preserve the flagging if they revert to the most recent? There too we may miss the chance to catch a reversion of good material. And in this case if the default view were the sighted revision it moving the pointer really wouldn't help.
Do these points convince you that the current behavior is better than your proposal?
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailn...
Good points, Gregory.
Regarding reverting back to anything other than the most recent sighted version, yes, I agree your point is absolutely convincing.
Regarding the possibility of missing potentially good edits when reverting back to the most recent sighted version, I would suggest that it depends on how far along the continuum between accuracy and completeness we are going to choose to live.
If we wanted the best, most complete picture, then we should never show a sighted version due to the risk of missing some good information (ala wiki now). Of course, we do _not_ want that, otherwise we would not be having this project. So, how much potential lost information is allowable and how much is not? I am not certain that the risk of losing some of the most recent information, which is still in the history, and which may be pure vandalism, outweighs the apparent need to have a large selection of stable articles.
Thanks,
--Avi
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled,
but
while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.
Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of
itself
sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person
performing
the revision?
Or am I missing something?
Imagine that a user reverts to a year old sighted version and we mark the new version as sighted. This would result in a decreased amount of review of the edit and as a result this bad change may go unnoticed for a longer span of time. Clearly that isn't good.
What if we only preserve the flagging if they revert to the most recent? There too we may miss the chance to catch a reversion of good material. And in this case if the default view were the sighted revision it moving the pointer really wouldn't help.
Do these points convince you that the current behavior is better than your proposal?
On 10/9/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the possibility of missing potentially good edits when reverting back to the most recent sighted version, I would suggest that it depends on how far along the continuum between accuracy and completeness we are going to choose to live.
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change. Let's not overestimate the significance of the flag; article histories & editing capabilities continue to exist as before. And the cost of having to re-screen after a simple revert (one of the most common operations) is unacceptably high.
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion of new text. ... it depends on the context.
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion of new text. ... it depends on the context.
The situation right now:
1) Trusted user A makes an edit. 2) Untrusted user B vandalizes. 3) Trusted user A reverts. 4) Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
This doesn't make sense; when a trusted user performs a revert to the most recently screened version, the newly created version should be sighted.
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion of new text. ... it depends on the context.
The situation right now:
- Trusted user A makes an edit.
- Untrusted user B vandalizes.
- Trusted user A reverts.
- Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is
counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
Ah, I see now that Avi was actually talking about a different scenario - sorry for not reading carefully. I agree that in the _non-editor_ scenario, the newly created version should not have the "sighted" flag since we don't know anything about the true nature of the change.
The untrusted users edit would not have been reviewed. So a good revert is all they need. When the next reviewer comes, it will prompt to review on edit with a diff. Since the bad stuff was reverted, their change would be the only think to review (cake).
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:41:36 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion of new text. ... it depends on the context.
The situation right now:
- Trusted user A makes an edit.
- Untrusted user B vandalizes.
- Trusted user A reverts.
- Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is
counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
This doesn't make sense; when a trusted user performs a revert to the most recently screened version, the newly created version should be sighted.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL10062697...
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion of new text. ... it depends on the context.
The situation right now:
- Trusted user A makes an edit.
To a reviewed version, I assume.
- Untrusted user B vandalizes.
- Trusted user A reverts.
- Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is
counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
This doesn't make sense; when a trusted user performs a revert to the most recently screened version, the newly created version should be sighted.
So, how about: * An edit to a reviewed version by a trusted user automatically becomes reviewed * A revert by a trusted user to a reviewed version becomes the latest reviewed version
Problem solved. Or did I miss something?
Magnus
2007/10/10, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
So, how about:
- An edit to a reviewed version by a trusted user automatically becomes reviewed
- A revert by a trusted user to a reviewed version becomes the latest
reviewed version
Problem solved. Or did I miss something?
Mh, maybe ;-) The first thing is already implemented. The second thing has the problem that the revert does not screen the templates. However, I think the added efficiency is worth the risk and therefore, this should still be implemented for rollbacks.
Bye,
Philipp
P. Birken wrote:
2007/10/10, Magnus Manske:
So, how about:
- An edit to a reviewed version by a trusted user automatically becomes reviewed
- A revert by a trusted user to a reviewed version becomes the latest
reviewed version
Problem solved. Or did I miss something?
Mh, maybe ;-) The first thing is already implemented. The second thing has the problem that the revert does not screen the templates. However, I think the added efficiency is worth the risk and therefore, this should still be implemented for rollbacks.
Bye,
Philipp
Why not auto-sight it but with the previous-sighted template-expansion?
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org