[WikiEN-l] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/27 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
>> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
>> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
>> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to realise and
>> work through it), then we have failed. If we can have every single
>> article on flagged revs and still keep on top of them, then we should
>> do that. If we can't, then we should keep it to just a small number of
>> articles that really need it.
>
> All of this implies some sort of well thought out and implement
> workflow functionality in Wikipedia. Do we have this? Do we have real
> queues of articles to be reviewed and automatic processes that
> highlight articles that have been waiting too long? Maybe I'm out of
> the loop, but I had the impression that with stuff like vandal
> fighting and new page monitoring, each editor essentially acts
> independently of any others, meaning there is a lot of doubling up of
> work...and some pages slip through the cracks.
>
> Do we have any way of combatting this with flagged revisions?

Yes. [[Special:OldReviewedPages]] contains a list of pages that have
been reviewed at least once but have been edited since the last
review, people just need to work through that list in order. Hopefully
the people that write tools like Huggle will update them to take
things edits out of that list to be checked.

There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
to keep an eye on it. It is possible that having all articles under
review will actually result in quicker reviews since all the
RC-patrollers can just move over to ORP-patrol.