On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm hoping it will work in practice like wikisource, where there are
four levels of approval as a text goes through the various
transcription and proofreading stages. But I may be misunderstanding
the differences.
I've just checked a small sample of 10d unreviewed changes
from the list. About 50% are not reviewed for unknown reasons,
the can (and I have) be given the flag within 30 seconds of
reading (style changes, URL changes).
The other half are unreferenced additions to articles nobody
cares about
Peter Jacobi wrote:
OTOH, requiring references for each addition would solve the
problem in the other direction.
Every time I've discussed specifics of flags I have come away confused
(admittedly, that is not very often). But, as I understand it, it is
technically possible to have
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Peter Jacobi wrote:
OTOH, requiring references for each addition would solve the
problem in the other direction.
Every time I've discussed specifics of flags I have come away confused
I'm hoping it will
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=englishaction=overviewproject=dewiki
To my mind the more important statistic is that 98% of all articles
have had their most recent revision reviewed.
--
Stephen Bain
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful
statistic would be the age of the oldest unreviewed revision.
What would also be useful would be to put together the list of
articles with
2009/2/2 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful
statistic would be the age of the oldest unreviewed revision.
17.8 days
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful
statistic would be the age of
2009/2/2 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=englishaction=overviewproject=dewiki
To my
2009/2/2 Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=englishaction=overviewproject=dewiki
To my mind the more important statistic is that 98% of all articles
have had their
11 matches
Mail list logo
