[Foundation-l] Regards marking article revisions as stable

[Voice of All]

 That site is very out of date atm.


Sage Ross wrote:
> 
> 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:
> 
> http://www.baach.de/phase3/index.php/Main_Page
> 
> -Sage
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Regards-marking-article-revisions-as-stable-tf3569522.html#a9999238
Sent from the WikiMedia Foundation mailing list archive at Nabble.com.