[WikiEN-l] Neo-nazis to attack wikipedia

Mon Feb 7 05:17:59 UTC 2005

At 09:33 PM 2/6/2005 -0500, Deathphoenix wrote:

>I've only been on the mailing list a short time, but it's sure opening my 
>eyes to the community and its concerns.
>
>What you're talking about is a type of "moderated articlespace". That 
>could work, and in fact, would be a great idea with a proper system. You'd 
>probably need to have a small team of volunteers willing to act as 
>moderators for each article (of course, people would be moderating much 
>more than a single "protected article"). The current {{protected}} system 
>is good for protecting the article so that only admins can edit it, so if 
>the moderators were admins, that would work. But I don't know how much 
>work that would add for the admins. Perhaps moderators should be granted 
>limited "admin" access to the moderated articles they are working on so 
>they can edit the protected article according to the Talk pages.

I've always been a fan of the approach of marking particular revisions of 
an article as "confirmed good", with "confirmed" being whatever system we 
come up with for making such decisions (editorial board, voting, whatever). 
Then we can have a link on each page to "view most recent confirmed 
version" that will jump you back to that particular version in the 
article's history. This way the working version of the article remains the 
"primary" one, and there's no risk of forks developing because the 
confirmed version is by definition a static historical thing, but we can 
say to people who question the quality of Wikipedia that now there's a way 
to make sure they aren't reading nonsense that was put in by vandals 
minutes (or months) earlier.

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005