2009/2/2 Carcharoth <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/2/2 Sam Korn <[email protected]>: >>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english&action=outofdatereviews&project=dewiki >> >> Ask, and you shall receive! Thank you! >> >> So that's 10570 articles that have been waiting over a day (out of >> 12667 articles with out of date reviews). That's pretty bad... I would >> have expected a long tail type distribution. Any ideas why there are >> so many very out-of-date article compared to slightly out-of-date >> ones? > > Might it be because they were looked at several times and each time > people went "um, not sure about this" and left it for someone else to > do? Flagged revisions is serious because the impression is that you > are verifying people's work to some standard. Now if someone quote an > obscure source, but you don't have or haven't heard of that source, > what do you do? Trust the editor? Let it go through anyway? Let > someone else deal with it and see a backlog build up?
I would have expected that to lead to a long tail - the longer a revision has been around, the more chance someone will have been sure enough to do something about it. > What I'd like to see is a feature where you can click "not sure" and > bump the review up several levels of expertise, so the difficult stuff > gets naturally filtered to those with the expertise. Say, subject > matter or foreign language, or obscure book. Depending on how flexible > such a system is, it might make flagging revisions more efficient, not > less. > > Training people to do rudimentary and moderate and advanced reviews > would be next. > > Extremely dififcult to scale and harness the right levels of expertise > (from typo-spotting upwards), but very rewarding if done right. One > problem is edits that combine different sorts of things, and the > "massive chunks of text added in one go". > > I presume the current system is a rudimentary one only designed to > catch obvious vandalism? If that is the case, people need to be more > alert than before (not less) to subtle vandalism and good-faith > misrepresentation of sources by poor or skewed writing. As I understand it, the German implementation has quite strict requirements for flagging. The suggestions on the English Wikipedia seem to be more about just stopping obvious vandalism. Different levels of flags would seem to be the solution (and have been discussed before, but I guess we need to wait until we have the basics working) - "sighted", "fact checked", "good", "featured", say. Anyone that is autoconfirmed can sight a revision with just a few seconds of review in most cases, fact checking requires you to have proven yourself competent and takes longer since you have to actually verify all the sources (and may need to have some experience of the subject in question in order to know if the sources have been correctly interpreted). Good and featured would follow existing procedure (and just make it easier to make it clear which revision was reviewed). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
