Visibility of Flagging

[P. Birken]

Hiho,

on the testpage (http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Wishlist_and_bugs),
someone brought up the point that if a flag is removed or lowered in
level, this nowhere appears except in the logfile and that it
therefore might look that flags just disappeared.

Aaron deliberately didn't include flagging messages into the recent
changes or the version history, as this would simply be spam and I
fully agree. However, I think some more visibility of this stuff would
be useful. A nice compromise could be to include all flaggings and
removal of flags of higher level than sighted into the history and the
recent changes. What do you think?

Bye,

Philipp

[R. S. Shaw]

... However, I think some more visibility of this stuff would
be useful. A nice compromise could be to include all flaggings and
removal of flags of higher level than sighted into the history and the
recent changes. What do you think?

It seems to me this is not really needed. Normally this case would happen when a reviewer is correcting himself, as after he accidentally put Quality on the wrong revision. It's appropriate that the revision history simply show the current thinking on the state of the revision (which it does).

If the lowering/removal of the Quality rating is due to a conflicting assessment by a different reviewer, then it should be noted or discussed on the talk page. The change information is available in the log, and needn't also be in the history. (It does add clutter to the history, and is inconsistent.)

[Aaron Schulz]

Code review is behind (I have checkuser/rev_deleted stuff waiting to be committed), but as of MW 1.12, logs *should* show in watchlists.

-Aaron Schulz

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:36:35 -0800
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Visibility of Flagging

... However, I think some more visibility of this stuff would
be useful. A nice compromise could be to include all flaggings and
removal of flags of higher level than sighted into the history and the
recent changes. What do you think?

It seems to me this is not really needed. Normally this case would happen when a reviewer is correcting himself, as after he accidentally put Quality on the wrong revision. It's appropriate that the revision history simply show the current thinking on the state of the revision (which it does).
If the lowering/removal of the Quality rating is due to a conflicting assessment by a different reviewer, then it should be noted or discussed on the talk page. The change information is available in the log, and needn't also be in the history. (It does add clutter to the history, and is inconsistent.)
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct