Difference between revisions of "PeerReview"

(→‎Discussion: remove more)
(→‎Discussion: delete more)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
 
Currently this is called [[RecentChanges patrol]] - there is some movement to get away from the patrolling "bad" edits ideology and to review peer edits.
 
Currently this is called [[RecentChanges patrol]] - there is some movement to get away from the patrolling "bad" edits ideology and to review peer edits.
−
 
−
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)
 
−
* I love this idea [[Kristina Weis|Kristina]] and it seems to me to be the middle ground I would like to see. We need to create another group to add people to - maybe the ever tense [[CommunityMember]]? [[MarkDilley]]
 
−
** I love the idea of a first level of trust where we simply autopatrol edits and nothing else.  "Community Member" like a fine name for this.  In the future we might find we also want other levels as well, but let's keep it simple for now, yes?  And, I still would like to remove "delete" from the PeerReview group so we can widely deploy that, even if people won't necessarily use it.  Deletion power really isn't very much used anyway, and seems to have such a great risk to it, with abuse pretty hard to detect.  And I'm not sure what benefit there is from PeerReviewers being able to delete.  peace, [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 09:03, 23 November 2007 (PST)
 
  
 
=== pros/cons for deletion ability ===
 
=== pros/cons for deletion ability ===

Revision as of 21:36, 23 November 2007

Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.

Proposal

To have full community involvement in maintaining site quality, because a small handful of paid people can't do it by giving people the tools that this site currently has.

  • Create a user group called CommunityMember which auto patrols edits, meaning that the persons edits are automatically deemed constructive and not needing review of each one.
  • Rename the group PeerReview (peerrev) to _____ which gives CommunityMembers a few extra special tools to help with maintaining site quality. These tools would include everything a CommunityMember has plus:
    • reviewing non automatically trusted edits
    • Should deleting be a responsibility inferred at this level? See pros/cons below for your input
  • System Administrator (sysop) continues to have the ability to change people to group named PeerReview now. (plus more)

Discussion

Currently this is called RecentChanges patrol - there is some movement to get away from the patrolling "bad" edits ideology and to review peer edits.

pros/cons for deletion ability

pros

  • category pages
  • junk pages
  • request for deletion
  • adult images
  • deletion log can be a way to monitor this as well as recent changes and would be auto patrolled.

cons

  • it's concerning when a non trafficked page can be deleted with virtually no oversight
  • by needing to check deletion log and recent changes it is creating more work.
  • it is an action that doesn't show up on a watched list.
  • deletion is not a fundamental issue for the site currently

Do we (the royal community we) agree?

Please indicate YES or NotYet below and when we have a clear consensus, we can act on it.
  • Ted: NotYet We're not done refactoring yet.
  • Mark: NotYet


Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.

Retrieved from "http://aboutus.com/index.php?title=PeerReview&oldid=12546859"