11 Sep 2019, 20:47 by o...@imagico.de:
> if the number of edits
> and the time spent on these by those willing and able to diligently
> pursue this path outnumbered edits of those who pursue other goals by a
> fair margin. This is not achievable i think.
>
It is not so bad.
Note that reverting is significantly
less time confusing than writing things.
More than once I needed less than minute
to spot and remove "hereby I redefine tag xyz"edit that needed far more time to
write.
it is hard to say how far away we are from
this goal, especially for me, as part of wiki that
I edit or at least monitor seem acceptable to me
because I already removed what I considered
as untrue/misguided/unwanted.
> And even if that worked it would still not produce the compact, well
> condensed kind of documentation Richard has in mind of course.
>
Here I agree.
> Wikipedia has been experimenting with a system of this kind imposed on
> top of the Mediawiki framework - but practically this is AFAIK used for
> technocratic oversight to avoid vandalism and other clearly malicious
> changes but not for editorial review regarding content quality:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes
>
> I have not actually tried the technical implementation of this but given
> how it is used i doubt it would be suitable for the kind of content
> centered editorial review we are talking about here.
>
given that only choices are
- accept
- revert
it is suitable only for combating
blatant vandalism.
Some way to discuss changes
would be needed to have useful
reviews before edit.
GitHub (or Gitlab or other equivalent)
would be better match for such requirements.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
