On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> wrote: [snip] > 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
Do you have a any data to support your rarity claim beyond the fact that reviews spanning multiple revisions are themselves rare to the point of non-existence on enwp currently? Why is rarity a good criteria to increase the incidence of blind reversion of good edits? An informal argument here is that many contributors will tell you that if their initial honest contributions to Wikipedia had been instantly reverted they would not have continued editing— and so extreme caution should be taken in encouraging blind reversion unless it is urgently necessary. Current review delays on enwp are very short what is the urgency for requiring a mechanism for _faster_ reversions of edits which are not being displayed to the general public? Could the goal of reducing the unapprove button be equally resolved by removing the unapprove button from the review screen where it is confusingly juxtaposed with the approve button and instead display it on the edit history next to the text indicating which revisions have the reviewed state? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
