[Wikipedia-l] Do we really need a Sifter project?

[Thomas R. Koll]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 05:45:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> This alone is already a kind of certification process, but it lacks one  
> component that the Sifter project provides, namely, the establishment of  
> trust by only linking to "safe" revisions of an article. This could be  
> integrated into the Brilliant Prose process relatively easily.

As far as I know currently articles only evolve and don't get worse!
So linking to the current version shouldn't be a mistake. Spam and
keyboard tests are undone quickly by us Admins.
I'd suggest that changes in BPs should get an own recent changes so we
can control them easier.

> I would personally prefer if a process was in place that if a consensus  
> cannot be reached within a timeframe, the page is added to a list of
> "Current negotiations", where again, for a period of 7 days, people would  
> be invited to suggest compromises and if that *also* fails, a vote is held  
> on the matter. This is to avoid problems like on the VfD page, where  
> sysops are given quite a lot of room for interpretation if a "consensus"  
> has been reached, and pages often linger without a decision for days or  
> even weeks.

A few days ago I suggested at the German a voting system, like 5 admins or
20 user yes-votes (for German WP) and the article goes from the candidate
list to the brilliant prose page. It could be automated and also the links
to BP could be marked with a star so the reader knows that this link is
BP. A new table for the BP would be necessary I think.

> * requires only one change to the software (permalinks), which is useful  
> anyway for external authors trying to provide a permanent reference to the  
> revision of the Wikipedia article they cite

If we introduce them, can we have <a href="#top3"> too?

-- 
ACHTUNG: Ab 26.7.03 haben wir wegen einer kurzfristigen
Absage noch eine Ferienwohnung für zwei Wochen frei.
Tel: 08652/63382 http://www.tomk32.de/fewo-koll/