PeerReview
Contents
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.
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.
- 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? TedErnst (talk) 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 | **talk** 17:46, 21 November 2007 (PST)
- I love this idea 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, TedErnst (talk) 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. John 09:16, 23 November 2007 (PST)
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