The act of patrolling [[recent changes]] and placing the changes you make in [[IRC]] for yourself and others to learn from.
−
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.
+
Previous discussion here, moved to [[CommunityPermissions]]
−
−
* 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
−
** deleting pages, such as test pages and test categories
−
*** ''it's easier to add privileges than it is to take them away - delete seems too risky to me, without enough benefits''
−
** can this person make community members?
−
*** ''I would think no, at this point, again because it's easier to grant tools later than take them away, so let's take the smallest steps that move us in teh right direction, and then take more steps towards openness as necessary and we're ready''
−
−
* 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.
−
−
−
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)
−
* 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)
−
::I had always envisioned multiple levels of Community Members but don't restrict all this good thinking to just Peer Reviewing, think about it as a path leading to Sysop and as set of Community Members with specific skills like Editors or Power Users. [[User:John Stanton|John]] 09:16, 23 November 2007 (PST)
−
::: You're right, John. This is taking place on the wrong page. The proposal above is about much more than peer reviewing. I'm really glad we're having this conversation! [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 09:22, 23 November 2007 (PST)
−
−
== 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}}
Latest revision as of 22:45, 23 November 2007
Rating: 0 - 0 votes
Company Logo
Company Name
Company Contact
Page Type
This page is about a company.
The act of patrolling recent changes and placing the changes you make in IRC for yourself and others to learn from.
