--- "Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is widely believed that mark as patrol failed for most projects because it was only a marker that didn't actually do anything important so nothing encourages people to keep up with it. The flagging system solves that issue by influencing the default page view for the public... something most Wikipedians will care a lot about.
Which is precisely why I think it is unwise to force this feature onto the communities in this way. Flagging is a feature (although a superflous one, as we already have enough ways to flag an article), but not showing the most current version to anonymous readers is a policy change.
I guess there are some articles, where vandalism is a huge problem and it might be alleviated with flagged revisions. But an easier and less intrusive way would be to just disable anonymous editing on these pages. And for 99% of all articles vandalism is occasional and easily dealt with.
Ulrich
On 9/24/07, ulim ulim@mayring.de wrote:
I guess there are some articles, where vandalism is a huge problem and it might be alleviated with flagged revisions. But an easier and less intrusive way would be to just disable anonymous editing on these pages. And for 99% of all articles vandalism is occasional and easily dealt with.
Not letting unregistered users edit controversial pages at all is surely less intrusive than holding their edits for review?
Erik Moeller schrieb, am 24.09.2007 10:07:
On 9/24/07, ulim ulim@mayring.de wrote:
I guess there are some articles, where vandalism is a huge problem and it might be alleviated with flagged revisions. But an easier and less intrusive way would be to just disable anonymous editing on these pages. And for 99% of all articles vandalism is occasional and easily dealt with.
Not letting unregistered users edit controversial pages at all is surely less intrusive than holding their edits for review?
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding by the OP.
There would be additional overhead, if the edits by the named "article-communities" have to be flagged - but this wouldn't be the case in 99,9% of the time, because it's highly likely that these persons accomplish the requirements of flag articles as sighted by themselves.
But the edits by authors who are allowed to flag articles as sighted are flagged as sighted automatically. So there would be no additional work and no delay.
Bye, Tim.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 9/24/07, ulim ulim@mayring.de wrote:
I guess there are some articles, where vandalism is a huge problem and it might be alleviated with flagged revisions. But an easier and less intrusive way would be to just disable anonymous editing on these pages. And for 99% of all articles vandalism is occasional and easily dealt with.
Not letting unregistered users edit controversial pages at all is surely less intrusive than holding their edits for review?
Add a protect-status where the page shows the stable version? (add view to edit, and move which can be set to on, off, and default) Then have a default action for pages with flagged revision and no specific action, decided by the wiki policy.
On 9/24/07, Platonides platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Add a protect-status where the page shows the stable version?
That's the configuration Jimmy, Florence and I prefer. WMF will hire a contractor to implement it if no volunteer does so in the next few days.
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org