[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] moving forward on article validation

[Delirium]

SJ wrote:
> Note that the "Wikipedia 0.5" WikiProject on en:wp is tackling this
> issue with some energy, and could use more input and nominations:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Nominations
>   
I wasn't aware of that; thanks for pointing it out.  It does seem to be 
tackling a different problem though.  My concern is with particular 
*revisions* of articles---that a specific version of the article has 
been reviewed and determined to be good.  Wikipedia 0.5 seems to be 
using a process similar to feature articles where articles are tagged, 
which doesn't necessarily guarantee that the current version of any 
included article is actually good (although it may raise the probability).


> Naive, single-scale ratings have many problems that I don't see being
> overcome.  (The advogato suggestions are no panacaea.)  Allowing
> groups of editors (self-selecting, auto-selected by user properties)
> to provide revision metadata that others can choose to see or not see
> as they please would be more scalable and less gameable.  Some of
> these groups could provide metadata of the form 'decent and not
> vandalized content'.
>   
I agree there are more things that could be presented, but I think we 
need a fairly simple display for non-logged-in users to see by default.  
More data available for those interested is certainly fine, but a 
passerby should, IMO, be able to tell at a glance how much credence to 
put in the article they're about to read.


>>> Proposal #3: Extend a feature-article-like process
>>>       
>
> I'm not sure what you meant by your example -- for instance by 'work
> on revisions rather than articles', as the goal is still a better
> article (you can't change a historical revision) -- but this is
> effectively what the en:wp validation effort is attempting.  This
> scales in that it can be split up among topic-centered WikiProjects.
> See for instance this list:

The issue with revisions instead of articles is that I think there 
should be some indication that a particular revision has been reviewed.  
A reader can then read it in confidence that someone has checked it, or 
maybe if the current version hasn't been checked even ask for the last 
reviewed version.  At the moment there's no such process---even with a 
feature article, I can't necessarily trust any of the facts without 
reading through the history to make sure it hasn't been vandalized in 
the last 10 minutes with some sneaky change, or even completely wrecked 
in the days/weeks/etc. since the last review; and even if I know it's in 
flux, there's no easy way for me to find the last good version without 
wading through the history.

-Mark