Problem for Sighted/Examined with reviewed/stable icons

Discussion:

R. S. Shaw

2007-04-25 21:25:35 UTC

... next step is to have something along the line of your icons for
unreviewed/reviewed/stable. Need to integrate it.

The de.WP Sighted/Examined design has three states to be distinguished:
* unrated
* marked as Sighted
* marked as Examined
These states need to be visible in the Version History lists, etc.

I initially thought the proposal to have 3 icons to represent unreviewed, reviewed, and stable states would work as a way showing the three WP.de states. Unfortunately, it seems they do not:

To work, the states would have to correspond like this:
* unreviewed = unrated
* reviewed = marked as Sighted
* stable = marked as Examined

The problem with this is that since Sighted is defined to be "reviewed but not stable", no Sighted version will appear as the default revision of a page, that is, display of the current vandalized version will be preferred over display of the most recent Sighted version, as would an ancient Examined version.

I believe this means the unreviewed/reviewed/stable icon idea will not work as is.

I am getting the feeling that we should bite the bullet (in the American idiom) and recognize in the implementation that the "unvandalized" dimension is special, and should have certain special treatments.

This is very much as applicable to en.WP as it is to de.WP. Even though en.WP may have more dimensions (depth, readability, etc) than does de.WP, the English WP still needs to rely heavily on the "unvandalized" characteristic to make the basic encyclopedia appear halfway reliable.

"Unvandalized" might be special in these ways:
(1) One can set it without setting any other dimension.
(2) If set and no other rating is set, the "unvandalized" icon is displayed.
(3) Perhaps, the right to set "Unvandalized" can be granted separately from other review rights.
(4) Perhaps, a non-null setting in any other dimension requires or implies that "Unvandalized" is set.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the unvandalized attribute fits into the Wikipedia world in a way fairly different from other dimensions like size (stub, etc) and readability (Concise, etc).

Thoughts on a treatment of Unvandalized in some way like this?

-RS

____________________________________________________________
Inbox.com is giving away free iPODs, movie tickets and gigabytes!
Learn more about this contest on http://www.inbox.com/contest

Aaron Schulz

2007-04-25 22:42:01 UTC

Permalink

Indeed, both should override. Currently they do, and "quality" takes
precenedence "stable".

Joerg or I can add a date limit too along with a checkbox option to show
then at special:unreviewedpages perhaps.

<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>

Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Problem for Sighted/Examined with
reviewed/stableicons
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0800

... next step is to have something along the line of your icons for
unreviewed/reviewed/stable. Need to integrate it.

* unrated
* marked as Sighted
* marked as Examined
These states need to be visible in the Version History lists, etc.
I initially thought the proposal to have 3 icons to represent unreviewed,
reviewed, and stable states would work as a way showing the three WP.de
* unreviewed = unrated
* reviewed = marked as Sighted
* stable = marked as Examined
The problem with this is that since Sighted is defined to be "reviewed but
not stable", no Sighted version will appear as the default revision of a
page, that is, display of the current vandalized version will be preferred
over display of the most recent Sighted version, as would an ancient
Examined version.
I believe this means the unreviewed/reviewed/stable icon idea will not work as is.
I am getting the feeling that we should bite the bullet (in the American
idiom) and recognize in the implementation that the "unvandalized"
dimension is special, and should have certain special treatments.
This is very much as applicable to en.WP as it is to de.WP. Even though
en.WP may have more dimensions (depth, readability, etc) than does de.WP,
the English WP still needs to rely heavily on the "unvandalized"
characteristic to make the basic encyclopedia appear halfway reliable.
(1) One can set it without setting any other dimension.
(2) If set and no other rating is set, the "unvandalized" icon is displayed.
(3) Perhaps, the right to set "Unvandalized" can be granted separately from
other review rights.
(4) Perhaps, a non-null setting in any other dimension requires or implies
that "Unvandalized" is set.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the unvandalized
attribute fits into the Wikipedia world in a way fairly different from
other dimensions like size (stub, etc) and readability (Concise, etc).
Thoughts on a treatment of Unvandalized in some way like this?
-RS
____________________________________________________________
Inbox.com is giving away free iPODs, movie tickets and gigabytes!
Learn more about this contest on http://www.inbox.com/contest
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

_________________________________________________________________
Dont quit your job Take Classes Online and Earn your Degree in 1 year.
Start Today!
http://www.classesusa.com/clickcount.cfm?id=866146&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.classesusa.com%2Ffeaturedschools%2Fonlinedegreesmp%2Fform-dyn1.html%3Fsplovr%3D866144

P. Birken

2007-04-26 06:47:15 UTC

Permalink

No, something is not right there. Reviewed does not override sighted,
but sighted is the default view. The definition of sighted is: "This
version does not contain vandalism". In particular, most of your

Post by R. S. Shaw
(1) One can set it without setting any other dimension.

In the german proposal, flags have no dimension and I agree, a
dimension for unvandalized is strange.

Post by R. S. Shaw
(2) If set and no other rating is set, the "unvandalized" icon is displayed.

Yes, the reader has to be given a clear notice, that this version to
all humanly possible does not contain "Motherfucker".

Post by R. S. Shaw
(3) Perhaps, the right to set "Unvandalized" can be granted separately from other review rights.

In the german proposal, this is naturally given.

Post by R. S. Shaw
(4) Perhaps, a non-null setting in any other dimension requires or implies that "Unvandalized" is set.

This is technically not the case in the proposal, but any reviewer who
would give a vandalized version the review flag would be in serious
trouble.

And you are right, I think that this is the sensible way to treat the
sighted-flag.

Bye,

Philipp