[Foundation-l] Regards marking article revisions as stable

Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com
Sat Apr 14 17:39:59 UTC 2007

On 4/12/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was just wondering who would feasibly *do* the marking as a stable
> revision? Obviously if this can be done by any users then there will be no
> advantage to it (as just the same liability toward inserting errors will
> transfer into a liability towards marking stable revisions which aren't
> actually stable). If you restrict it to registered users then there will
> still be no advantage, as even long-time registered users often vandalise
> and get things wrong. If you restrict it to admins then there will be too
> few of them.

This will probably be decided independently by each project, and the
threshold may be set differently for different types of articles (in
particular, biographies of living persons).  On en-wiki, unless we can
develop an efficient semi-automated process for flagging "trusted
users", general reviewer status will probably have to be based on edit
count and time since registration.  It's an open question how best to
deal with biographies, and how select a pool should have the ability
to mark them as safe.

> I was just wondering what people thought of these issues, and what plans
> there are, if there are any.

There aren't yet any clear plans as far as I know (at least on
en-wiki) for how stable revisions should be used, since the technology
is still evolving.  You can it in action at:



More information about the foundation-l mailing list