[Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version

[Avi]

Good points, Gregory.

Regarding reverting back to anything other than the most recent sighted
version, yes, I agree your point is absolutely convincing.

Regarding the possibility of missing potentially good edits when reverting
back to the most recent sighted version, I would suggest that it depends on
how far along the continuum between accuracy and completeness we are going
to choose to live.

If we wanted the best, most complete picture, then we should never show a
sighted version due to the risk of missing some good information (ala wiki
now). Of course, we do _not_ want that, otherwise we would not be having
this project. So, how much potential lost information is allowable and how
much is not? I am not certain that the risk of losing some of the most
recent information, which is still in the history, and which may be pure
vandalism, outweighs the apparent need to have a large selection of stable
articles.

Thanks,

--Avi


On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/07, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know I'm dropping in a bit late, and perhaps this was already handled,
> but
> > while I was testing this evening, it seems to be that when a non-editor
> > reverts a page back to the last sighted version, it still reads current.
> >
> > Wouldn't it make sense that if the version reverted to is in and of
> itself
> > sighted, that that should be reflected, regardless of the person
> performing
> > the revision?
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> Imagine that a user reverts to a year old sighted version and we mark
> the new version as sighted.  This would result in a decreased amount
> of review of the edit and as a result this bad change may go unnoticed
> for a longer span of time. Clearly that isn't good.
>
> What if we only preserve the flagging if they revert to the most
> recent?  There too we may miss the chance to catch a reversion of good
> material. And in this case if the default view were the sighted
> revision it moving the pointer really wouldn't help.
>
> Do these points convince you that the current behavior is better than
> your proposal?
>



-- 
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki at gmail.com>
    Primary key fingerprint:  D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/attachments/20071009/4c29fe26/attachment.htm