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?
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
