[Wikipedia-l] Waiting for 1.0

Sat Jul 17 03:14:46 UTC 2004

At 12:31 PM 7/16/2004 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Magnus Manske wrote:
>>Now, the rapid change of wikipedia articles unveils this problem:
>>* Does the second approval need to be for the *same version* as the 
>>first, or can it be for a later one, which then gets the "seal of approval"?
>
>It should be essentially for the same one, except for corrections of minor 
>spelling errors or typos.

Users who approve a version of an article would likely watchlist it, so it 
doesn't seem like a major imposition to require them to review newer edits 
and give approval to newer versions if need be. Perhaps even have the 
software create a sort of parallel specialized watchlist that shows 
articles you've approved in the past that have had edits performed on them 
since then, both to make sure one doesn't forget to watchlist them and to 
make sure one's regular watchlist doesn't become cluttered.

>>Also, should there be
>>* yes/no approval(s)
>>* or rather a rating (0-9 or something)
>
>The numerical rating has much merit. and an average rating can be 
>generated as a composite of these.

Users should only have the yes/no option, IMO, since including or excluding 
an article is an all-or-nothing proposition. Combining multiple users' 
ratings into a more fine-grained number could be handy, though, showing 
whether the approval is controversial at a glance. The details of this 
rating system will no doubt be the subject of endless bickering, which I 
look forward to seeing the end result of. :)