Hello, on Donnerstag, 5. November 2009, Sascha 'saigkill' Manns wrote:
Am Donnerstag 05 November 2009 14:41:56 wrote Rupert Horstkötter:
we still need to agree on either Sandboxing or FlaggedRevs as our QA
Im voting for Sandbox.
I still think that sandboxing an existing article (to do bigger changes in it) will cause some maintenance headache and therefore vote against copying existing articles to sandbox before doing big edits. New articles are a different story - maybe sandboxing could be useful for them until they are complete. Therefore I'm neutral when it comes to sandboxing of _new_ articles (and also on the method of making a new article "official"). IMHO it should be allowed to start an article directly in the main namespace if it is complete from the beginning on.
2. Existing content? We need to distinguish between minor and major edits here and define those within the Guidelines. [...]
The point with minor/major edit is not easy. AFAIK every User can say in the Editbox if this is an Minor Edit or not. So it is difficult to clarify that.
This is the main problem with major/minor edits - you have to trust the users (all of them!) that they really declare their changes correctly. Additionally, lots of minor changes sum up to a major edit ;-) With (only) sandboxing, we might end up with QA for new articles (sandbox), but no working QA for editing existing articles (maybe some people follow Special:Recentchanges, but you never know if a specific change was noted/checked by someone because there is no flag for it). And this is where the FlaggedRevs would be useful IMHO. To sum up my mail: - use FlaggedRevs for QA of existing articles - do NOT use sandboxing for major edits of existing articles - optional: sandbox for new articles Regards, Christian Boltz -- Das einzige Instrument, das ich beherrsche, ist MP3-Player. [Kristian Köhntopp] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org