Difference between revisions of "Create Community Reviews Guidelines"
(→'''Discussion''': more on this ..) |
(moving people to body, putting "Lead?" in the header) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|name = Create Community Reviews Guidelines | |name = Create Community Reviews Guidelines | ||
|pairdays = ?? | |pairdays = ?? | ||
| − | |who = [[ | + | |who = [[Lead?]]}}<noinclude></big> |
| + | == Working on this == | ||
| + | [[KristinaWeis]], [[Kasey]], [[Ted]] | ||
=='''Description'''== | =='''Description'''== | ||
Description: | Description: | ||
Revision as of 20:50, 19 October 2007
Working on this
Description
Description:
This is the page that we will be linking users to: Community Reviews Guidelines
Why?
Business Reason: AboutUs is a place for community reviews, but not libel.
Done When
>
Useful Links
CommunityWork- this page is the overall scope for community work and examples
CommunityWorkInitialDefinition- seems to be the project page for the above link
Discussion
>
- Examples: Category:Reviews Need Patrolling
- Also, previous page more related to formatting with some guidelines is CommunityReviewsFormatting. KristinaWeis 16:27, 4 September 2007 (PDT)
-
...
- anonymous reviews especially the glowing and the scathing seem suspect and the latter vindictive. These also seem utterly useless with no name, location, time- like they just dropped in from the ether?
A logged in user would be great, a name with an IP and name and date.... Obviously, signing with your user name would be ideal, but a name or email address is pretty good as well.
- I queston how useful, any anonymous reviews are. Kasey 12:47, 19 October 2007 (PDT)
- Would not allowing unsigned or anonymous reviews be unwiki?
- Are unsigned reviews (IPs with a name are fine) even helpful? Are these reviews real?
Task Lead
- Task Lead:
Resource Estimate
- Pair Days:
Evaluator
- Evaluator:
Task Evaluation
- How the task went:
- Sign off Person:
- Sign off Date:
