John Lee wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
It would be good if we could put users on probation. Occasionally I've taken the effort to track a vandal, watching and reverting their edits. But it would be nice to be able to say "this user's next edit is 90% likely to be vandalism, hence, let's screen it *before* it goes live". All the edits of probationary users could appear on one screen, and people watching that list could pick out the occasional good ones to let through, much like moderating a mailing list.
This is something of a perennial proposal. The main problem I see with it is the potential for edit conflicts - if a valid edit goes through between when the probationary edit is made, and when it is approved, there might be trouble merging the two edits together.
The technical side could actually be handled rather easily: all we need is a way to tag a specific revision as the visible one. If the visible version isn't the latest, and someone tries to edit it, they get the same (or similar) warning as when editing an old revision in general.
"You are editing the stable version of this page. If you save it, any unreviewed changes made since this version will be removed."
(In fact, it might be possible to use the existing page_latest column for this, though I haven't really checked.)
On 6/19/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
The technical side could actually be handled rather easily: all we need is a way to tag a specific revision as the visible one. If the visible version isn't the latest, and someone tries to edit it, they get the same (or similar) warning as when editing an old revision in general.
"You are editing the stable version of this page. If you save it, any unreviewed changes made since this version will be removed."
Hmm, not bad. A bit more info, like "There are 3 unconfirmed edits, by vandal1, vandal2 and niceguy3". Click here to review these, or click here to discard them and continue editing.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
Hmm, not bad. A bit more info, like "There are 3 unconfirmed edits, by vandal1, vandal2 and niceguy3". Click here to review these, or click here to discard them and continue editing.
Steve
That looks like the kind of message humans (''those stupid machines'') will press 'ok, they're all good edits' '''without reviewing''' only to get the editbox shown. :(
On 6/19/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
That looks like the kind of message humans (''those stupid machines'') will press 'ok, they're all good edits' '''without reviewing''' only to get the editbox shown. :(
That worst case scenario is equivalent to our current scenario. It could be mitigated by showing, in your face, on the screen, the text of the edits themselves, rather than making people click links etc. It's also handy that they can be grouped - you only need to show the combined effect of all the intervening modifications.
Steve
Platonides wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
Hmm, not bad. A bit more info, like "There are 3 unconfirmed edits, by vandal1, vandal2 and niceguy3". Click here to review these, or click here to discard them and continue editing.
That looks like the kind of message humans (''those stupid machines'') will press 'ok, they're all good edits' '''without reviewing''' only to get the editbox shown. :(
The way I proposed it would work was the way editing an old version currently works. That is, you do get an edit box containing the version you were trying to edit, but you _also_ get a big red box saying something like: "You are editing an old version. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be lost."
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org