Hi Erik, here are some comments on your thoughts.
I can clarify some things, for example on the discussion about gesichtete versionen, the criterion for users to obtain that right is 30 days and 30 edits in article namespace. Thus, the threshhold is far below adminship. As for the problems of this scaling, I fully agree with you. The implementation has to be in a way, that it does scale and the diffs you mention are very important there. However, what you say about patrolled edits is only half the truth: the dutch wikipedia is using this. A good report on their experience can be found here. I find their comments very helpful and also believe, that if that scales, we can surely make gesichtete versionen scale.
As for reviewed versions, I don't really agree with you. First of all, reviewers won't be allowed to review their own articles. This alone will lead to collaborations. Furthermore, it is planned such that the active portals will be the ones who organize all this. They will have to discuss what a useful process will be for their area. Finally, it is possible that multiple authors flag the same version. It might be a good idea to use this to do the reviewing collaboratively, in particular as some articles are impossible to review alone. However, all this is still up in the air.
However, it is not the working areas like featured articles that I have in mind with this flag, but essentially all the rest of hundreds of thousands articles that were never properly reviewed or, more accurately where we simply cannot tell if someone really took the time to read the article as necessary.
Take care and congrats on winning the board elections! --de:Benutzer:P. Birken 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Erik, you wrote: "If the process does not scale, there is a risk of users waiting for hours, days or even weeks for their changes to articles to be effectively approved." I say: If the process doesn't scale we lack good arguments why we keep a site on the internet that doesn't have any functioning processes to make sure that crap, defamation and all other kinds of vandalism isn't deleted within a few minutes. The scaling problem of the feature than would only be a symptom of a much bigger problem.
And I'm very much with Philipp when it comes to the reviewed versions. There is nothing hindering the reviewers to collaborate in the current proposal, to the contrary it gives them very much freedom to organize this. --Kurt Jansson 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I second Kurt's thoughts whole-heartedly. 184.108.40.206 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Gude riting iz whut CZ iz eyeing. Criticism goes, "Grammar, grammar, grammar." Unleash Clippy? 220.127.116.11 20:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)