see below
On 2 Oct 2004, at 09:10, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Friday 01 October 2004 13:36, Randy Becker wrote:
This is part of the reason I'm swaying away from the current course I've taken, and towards a cleaner approach, but I will bring up the "stable time" to see if it's an acceptable solution. Also, part of the
I think that stable time is not possible solution. Most articles rarely remain stable for any longer amount of time. Someone will fix grammar, remove a comma... there will always be minor or major changes, especially as the changes don't propagate to the article, and the time will always be resetted.
problem with this is how does it reach a stable point, as *all* evidence of an edit by a user should not be evident from the wiki, except to sysops or the like. (editing should display the previously approved entry, and only approved entries should appear in the history etc.) Because of all of this, I'm thinking of trying to implement a kind of queue of edits, which would bee looked at, and then approved or rejected, and if rejected, just dropped, if approved, added as if the user which submitted them had added them themselves.
This is possible approach, but who is going to do the approving and rejecting?
Your questions shall be answered: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Wikimedia_meetup_2005#Possible_speakers_and_workshops
;-)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com