(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Edit Page Image
Select image...
jpeg, png, or gif
one megabyte or smaller
will be resized to 270 pixels wide
Edit Name
Edit Contact Information
Edit Page Type
Map
Edit Page Rating
Line 17:
Line 17:
=='''Discussion'''==
=='''Discussion'''==
−
Just clarifying what this means. Is this to allow people to use [[uberpatrol]] and manually patrol edits, without any other admin powers? [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 15:50, 17 November 2007 (PST)
+
Thanks John! [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 21:49, 22 November 2007 (PST)
−
::Initially this would allow normal patrolling the old fashioned way. I suspect it is a minor tweek to allow access to Uber Patrol -BUT- Uber Patrol is not yet ready for prime time and I personally would not release it to a larger group until the multiuser issues have been fully addressed and the UI has been worked over. Public Release of Uber Patrol should be a high priority and at least 1 Dev person should be assigned to fix and launch it IMHO [[User:John Stanton|John]] 19:29, 17 November 2007 (PST)
+
: ''moved to [[PeerReview]]''
−
I'm inclined to agree with Simon that the power to delete might be too much for this group. What do you think, John? [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 15:22, 19 November 2007 (PST)
−
::Lets try it, if it is abused we can remove it [[User:John Stanton|John]] 15:26, 19 November 2007 (PST)
−
::: John, here's my concern. If anyone with the power to grant "PeerReviewer" status has any concerns about "too much power", even the slightest concern, then they will be less likely to grant the status, meaning we will have fewer PeerReviewers. I'd like to limit the PeerReviewer powers as drastically as necessary to get us what we want, which is many, many people PeerReviewing. Sysops have more power and thus we have fewer of them, because we're granting them much trust. As far as I know, no one has yet abused that power, but this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, I think, because we don't grant the powers far and wide. And, I'm not sure what we gain by giving them more power than we think they need to do peer review, honestly.
−
:::This is not critical to change immediately as we are just learning how to give the new status and how to train people in what to do, but when we're thinking about who to give it to, I this this has to play a part, even just a very small part. Thoughts? [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 06:15, 21 November 2007 (PST)
−
−
::: In fact, the more I think about this, the auto-patrolling of these people's edits is maybe my favorite feature of this new group. Of course allowing them to review and rollback is great as well. With those two abilities, maybe that's enough, and allows us to really roll this group out widely, maybe even without much individual training for each person? We could see a person making lots of good edits over time and just put them in the group without a big fanfare. Or maybe "trusted member" is a different category? An earlier one? [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 07:48, 21 November 2007 (PST)
−
−
I think that having the option for just a "let's auto-patrol this person's edits and give them the option to do the other stuff if they want" would be good. I think something like that minus delete would be great and then it could be just a hey "you have this functionality now cause we love/cherish/trust you and your edits (which are now auto-patrolled)...we'd love to show you the ropes on peer reviewer if you're interested." There are several people that do a lot of great stuff that I don't think needs patrolled, but I don't think that peer reviewing will necessarily be their thing. I think it would be great to lower the # edits that need to be peer reviewed and to help bring these people into the community more cause it's a great pat on the back in the name of trust. [[Kristina Weis|Kristina]] | [[User talk:KristinaWeis|**talk**]] 17:46, 21 November 2007 (PST)
