On 4 Aug 2011, at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, TerryE <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/08/11 11:31, Jean Weber wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> 2) Alternatively, or in addition, the first X edits/ contributions/ >>>>> whatever are moderated by a group of people, any one of whom can approve >>>>> or reject the items. After X acceptable contributions, the person is >>>>> then allowed to edit the wiki without further supervision -- until or >>>>> unless they start posting inappropriate material such as spam. Again, >>>>> very few spammers will take the trouble to post some useful info before >>>>> going into spam mode. >>>>> >>>>> These methods deal with the vast majority, if not all, of the concerns I >>>>> have seen Rob expressing about systems with no control at all, but at >>>>> the same time they do not require more time or commitment on the >>>>> contributors' part to be authorised to participate. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK, most wikis& similar sites provide some way to limit the editing >>>>> of specific pages to a smaller group of people (admins or whatever). >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>> >>> You probably know more about this than I do, but my understanding is that >>> the current OOo wiki has an extension installed that does what I was >>> suggesting in option 2, but the extension has not been implemented. See: >>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and specifically: >>> >>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Automatic_user_promotion >>> >> Jean >> >> Yes, you are correct. This is extension can do this and more, but with a >> grey issue like this I feel that a DL based dialogue isn't the best way to >> work out what to do here. Better we work up a position paper/page within >> the OOOUSERS cwiki laying down the options, their pros and cons and then >> agree a consensus or vote either on the paper itself. Use the DL to note >> the consensus and get wider feedback. >> >> What concerns me is the moderation load involved with such an active >> intervention of review-before-publish. Perhaps others with moderator >> experience might care to comment? >> > > The general approach at Apache is to grant trust once merit has been > shown. So we should be liberal in granting additional rights to > contributors who make consistent, high quality contributions. If > moderation is a bottleneck then it shows that we're not distributing > power efficiently.
Given Jean's next paragraph, how would a potential contributor be able to establish that reputation? > >> My worry is that review-before-publish also ignores the reality of how >> people edit wikis. In general they don't prepare and proof draft offline >> then paste their best and final into the article. Most do it section by >> section or end up correcting / rewording when they see the final version, so >> one logical edit can comprise half a dozen posts. I am not sure how this >> would work if you've got to wait for approval before the next edit. >> >> We also still need the quality checks: does the email exist, who is she/he, >> etc. and I am not sure how we could include these in an automaic bump. >> >> Terry >> >>> --Jean >>> >>> >> >>
