User talk:Aoineko/Validation/en

Thanks to all they correcting my English. Aoineko

Bonne idée. Ne restera plus qu'à se mettre d'accord sur comment nommer les validators ;D Alvaro 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goor idea. Just find a way to nominate (?) the validators ;D Alvaro 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too find it very good, and it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to interpret for the developers. Well done! Jon Harald Søby 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation[edit]

I recopy here a mail I sent to wikitech-l because I think it shed some light on the proposal. Aoineko

I'm totally confusing between "validation", "review" and "stable" concepts and who want what!? On a dynamic site like Wikipedia the "stable" concept seem very odd for me. Does that imply any restrictions to modify the article further? Are we all ok to say an article is never really finished?

Actually, the only problem I see is we can't give any kind of guaranties about the exactness of a given article's revision. The featured article label is problematic (at least on French Wikipedia) because we give it to an article (instead of a revision) and with the open system used by Wikipedia we can't assure the future revisions will not contain any errors. In an other hand, any kind of restriction of editing a validated article is contrary to the open spirit of the Wikipedia project. Finally, I think we must clearly separate the review and the validation process. The first is a nice optional feature that tells what the community thinks about an article and/or revision quality, while the second is a really important feature that just tells "(we really think) there is no error in this revision" (this mean an article can be incomplete but "valid").

("Review" and "validation" are the right words to describe the above?)

My proposal [1] only relate to "validation". The main idea is to allow marking any revision of an article as "valid" (by community consensus, validators or an other process to be determined) and use this flag to change some navigation behaviors and give some visual feedback.

2 navigation behaviors:

Validate: When consulting an article with a validated revision existing in history, this validated version is show (otherwise the more recent non-validated revision is shown). When viewing a validated revision and a more recent non-validated exist, a link to this revision is add in navigation panel ("last development"). [default for anonymous]
Development: As now but when a validated revision exist in article history a link to this revision is add in navigation panel ("last validate"). [default for logged users]

Visual feedback:

A validated article revision has a different class (CSS) to allow customize its style (different background color, specific information box, etc.).
History highlights (via style) the validated revisions.

Any comments are welcome here or on the proposal talk page.

Aoineko / Guillaume Blanchard