See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colonel_Chaos/study
I really want to avoid a page with a template that says "George Bush born in 1777" or a page with a vagina for the person's infobox say "reviewed, sighted for vandalism", and the reverted change raised that risk. I can only image the SlashDot headlines.
I may talk to Domas to see how efficient it is to check if the templates/images are synced (basically a query similar to the one I recently added to diffs) accept with LIMIT=1 and it would not check images if it already found a changed template. If they are totally synched, I wouldn't have a problem with the tag saying "current, sighted"/"Current, quality" or some such. If such a change is made, both UIs should have it too.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:10:57 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
Also, I don't want to gloss over the other points - I'll write a bit more detailed about templates - but really, I think they pale in comparsion to the significance of the _primary_ reader-oriented indicators we use, and what they will say in what we want to be the most common case: the article _and_ the templates all being sighted.
On 10/7/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/7/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
I'm mainly talking about higher profile pages. I looked up George Washington. It has around 50 templates and 17 images. That would require MySQL to scan up to 134 rows on each page view to see if things where changed
Not on each pageview. Most hits are on the caches, which are already purged if templates are changed. And you have to load these rows anyway on an uncached hit, since you fetch the template data. So I don't see what the big deal is with also fetching the flagging data.
I'm not convinced at all it's a performance issue. I'll have a chat with Brion about it.
The UI change was not much better, and it even through of Phillip resulting in some confusion earlier.
Yep, in a template vandalism situation. Which is going to be the _exception_, not the rule. The rule we want to strive for _is_ that a page and all its components have been "sighted and current". And giving a clear visual indication of that state is the best way to do that.
But anyway, I'm not arguing we should accept it working inaccurately with templates. I'm arguing it's absolutely worth doing right though.
- What will most people think "revision" and "change" means?
Sorry, but if you're at that level, you've already lost most readers. Seriously. People shouldn't have to care about revisions or changes at all, and most people don't. The point here is to convey in a reader-friendly way that a basic check has taken place. So that I can print the article about a town into a brochure and not worry that it says somewhere in the middle that the residents are all the product of incestuous relationships.
Therefore I think your discussion about the semantics of changes is largely beside the point. From a reader point of view, it's already far too low level.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailn...