On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 27 June 2010 19:48, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > > For example, let's say that there are three pending revisions in the > queue. > > That means there is the latest accepted revision (we'll call "A1"), and > > three pending revisions ("P1", "P2", and "P3"). P3 is the latest pending > > revision, while P1 and P2 are intermediate pending revisions. > > > > The specification says that when viewing the diff between A1 and P3, the > > "reject" button is enabled. A more conservative school of thought says > that > > the "reject" button shouldn't be enabled, because its possible that P1 > was a > > valid revision that was vandalized by P2, and the only way to tell is to > > look at the revision history. However, this should be reasonably rare, > and > > the diff remains in the edit history to be rescued, and can be reapplied > if > > need be. A competing problem is that disabling the "reject" button will > > result in the same confusion we're already seeing today. > > The guidance for reviewing multiple edits > ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing#Step-by-step_.22how-to.22_for_reviewing_multiple_edits > ) > says you have to go through them one-by-one (unless they are all by > the same user), so I suggest eliminating the option of review multiple > edits with a single click, unless they are all by the same user. The > feature should be designed to fit in with the way it is used, after > all. Once you've done that, the issue you raise goes away. I think it actually gets worse. What should the reject button do in the case that the reviewer is looking at A1 and P1? However, I > would suggest a "rollback" or "undo" button (which does that same as > those buttons always do) rather than a "reject" button - don't > introduce a new term when it does the same thing as an existing > feature with its own name. The confirmation page that is shown when the user hits "reject" tells the reviewer that they are about to "undo" one or more revisions. We're not wedded to the word "reject", but it's pretty clear that reviewers are going to look around to the counterpart to "accept". There's already an "undo" link on these pages, but people still feel that some sort of "reject" or "decline" is necessary. Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
