Extension talk:FlaggedRevs/archive 1

Here are my initial thoughts.

The contribution list for a user could include the reviews done.

The text of the box on a non-reviewed page when there is a reviewed revision could be:

This version has not been reviewed. The latest reviewed version is available here.

There could also be no mention of any review notes on a non-reviewed page.

When I log in, I get the latest version. I would normally like to see the reviewed version. Perhaps there should be a user preference option to say which version is initially displayed.


 * Thats on the wishlist - see the specs.txt file --Jhb 19:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I protected the main page but there was no message indicating that it was protected.

Also, after protection, it would not be possible for many users to edit the page which goes against the text

The current revision is editable

These comments are pretty cosmetic.

I found no bugs. Well done. Eiler7 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Just found a bug.

If you visit the main page, you get one version. Click on Permanent Link you get another. Eiler7 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was fixed by a small change to trunk but brion reverted it. Ideally, there will be a Special:Stableversions page with an oldid= param to parse it as a stable page, as even giving the right perma-link Id can still be a tad misleading (old rev, current images and templates). Voice of All 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed something else. If you do a change when not logged in, you arrived at the reviewed page, not the version you just created. This is unnatural. In my view, neither of these issues should hold up deployment on the English wikipedia.

I wonder if we need a requirements document. Certainly, the current interface meets my main requirement. Namely, it allows people to avoid seeing a vandalised version of a page, which happened with the Tony Blair page in an external review. See this link  Eiler7 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When editing a page that has a stable version, the tag should probably be clear about this and suggesting the use of preview. Voice of All 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thought. If reviewed versions use the current images, then this might not be a good thing. Perhaps reviewing a page should cascade to reviewing all images and templates which have no reviewed version. Eiler7 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed pages clone the images and place them in the /stable directory.Voice of All 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns
Will the threshold for displaying versions (i.e., non-vandalized, checked for accuracy, etc.) be a universal namespace setting, or can it be set for individual articles and/or classes of articles? It will be useful if this feature could support a "living person" tag for biographies of living people, and all articles with that tag have a higher threshold for public display than simply "non-vandalized". Will it be able to work that way? -- ragesoss


 * I understand what you are saying. I suggest that BLP pages have a different definition of vandalised. So, if the George Bush page were changed to say that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination without proof, that would count as vandalism in my book. Eiler7 11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The main issue is that it may be desirable to have a more select group of editors who can review BsLP (and things like the main page, if it becomes open to editing) than those who can review other articles. --ragesoss
 * I've set up two review groups, editor and review. By configuring what tags they can set to what level and what tags/levels are needed for page overriding (by the latest stable version), this can be dealt with. Voice of All 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No reviewed revisions
I just created a page Eric Clapton and reviewed it. However, clicking on the page now, we find it says "There are no reviewed revisions of this page". This is a bad bug. Eiler7 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that is, but that site is still running an older version. Voice of All 17:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision
I have tried the test wiki again. The Clapton page now displays with correct information. However, I think the wiki should show the reviewed version by default. Currently, it does not. The same will, I hope, apply to en.wikipedia.org when the changes are applied there. The logic is that the average viewer and the researcher will both want to do a non-vandalised version. So, this will give a better impression of the quality available through the wiki process.Eiler7 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That only happens if the flagged rev meets "stable" critera. Depending on how it is set, "draft level" may not be good enough. This useful if one revision is featured, and one newer one is somehow "draft level", in which case we would likely want the feauted one.Voice of All 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently the Clapton page shows the latest revision when there is a draft revision available. I think that the draft revision (read unvandalised) should be shown. Is that a setting change on the Clapton page or is this a bug? Eiler7 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Test wiki
I have just been playing around with the test wiki again and it seems that the Main Page link in the navigation box takes one to the page Wikiversity:Main_Page. Was this intended? Eiler7 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple flagged revisions
I haven't had the chance to play around with the extension, but I have several questions:


 * 1) Will the extension allow for several types of revision flags? (E.g. "vandalized", "reviewed", "assessed", "featured", etc...)
 * Yes. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Will the extension allow flag sub-types (e.g. "assessed: quality: B-Class", "assessed: importance: Top", "featured: FAC: promoted", etc.)
 * No pretty way to do this. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a couple of null fields on the table? Titoxd (?!?) 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this essentially stable versions?
 * I guess. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Will the extension produce a way to query articles with certain properties? (e.g. w:en:WP:1.0/I)
 * The stable revisions and their overall level (stable,quality,featured) can be found at Special:Stableversions. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Will revisions be able to be tagged retroactively?
 * Yes. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Will revisions be able to hold more than one tag simultaneously?
 * Yes. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Will pages be able to hold more than one revision tagged in a particular way?
 * Yes. Voice of All 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd (?!?) 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes submitted to trunk?
I think this is a great feature! Just 2 questions: --Y.combarnous 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) When do you think the changes will be submitted to trunk, so that this extension can be used without using a forked codebase ?
 * 2) Are there chances this feature makes it for MW 1.11 ?
 * Another dev will merge in FileRepo work, I'll reconcile with that and submit the revision delete code along with the parser hook stuff needed for this extension to work. This will definitetly be done by the time 1.11 is out. Aaron 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great news, thanks for the quick answer.--Y.combarnous 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) What exactly are the differences between "editor" and "reviewer" privileges? One can be given automatically and one needs a bureaucrat so I assume they are significant differences.
 * Reviewers are more trusted and can rate revisions higher. Aaron 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So in a really basic sense, an editor could rate a revision as "stable" but only a reviewer could rate one as "featured"? Mr.Z-man 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What exactly are all the "tagging levels"?
 * Customized, by default, there are four. I'll probably get an up to date demo site up soon. Aaron 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Which version will be the version seen by search engines? Mr.Z-man 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The stable version. Aaron 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates and images
How would one go about updating a template or image transcluded into many articles? Would the new version of the template have to be approved for each article? Audacity 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, each page would have to be re-reviewed. Updating images/templates in masse could case problems such as the template params/format change and break some pages or the new image version makes the caption no longer make sense (say it says "picture of east Munich, and the new version if from the west). Nevertheless, the way the schema is set up, it is possible to run an UPDATE query WHERE tmp_rev_id=x and replace it with Y, same with images, a feature that could perhaps be added later. Aaron 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would require an extra INDEX on the tables. Aaron 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Error with namespaces
First I have to say that this is great stuff and an absolutly 'must have extension'. :-) Then I think that I found a bug:
 * When you have an article in the standard namespace - at my wiki it is called 'Meta:Test' and it is the same as - the rating fields are not shown below the article (error 1).
 * When you have an article with no namespace the rating fields are shown. If you set it to a higher review level all is fine, but if you set it not for publishing (=lowest review level) I get: "Internal error. This action can not be used on this page.(error 2)". If you first set it to a higher and later to the lowest I get the following error message: "Fatal error: Call to a member function getNamespace on a non-object in meta\includes\WatchedItem.php on line 26. (error 3)"

The cause can probably be that I have a wiki which is viewable only by members. --Wissenslogistiker 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the meta namespace in $wgContentNamespaces? Aaron 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the getNamespace error was fixed. Aaron 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I reloaded Extension via SVN, did update.php. For error 1: Yes, meta namespace is as default in Defaultsettings.php part of it: '$wgContentNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );' and '$wgSitename        = "Meta";'. I did not change $wgContentNamespaces in Localsettings.php. The other ones (error 1 and 2) are solved, but I have now a different behavior: When I create the page, then approve this version, make an edit and set the prove to the lowest level it says "Internal error. This action can not be used on this page."  --Wissenslogistiker 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't repeat any of these errors. If you reviewed the first revision, then made a new one, you can't "unreview" the new one, only the one that was reviewed. If you try to unreview a revision that was not reviewed, it gives the error message. Aaron 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this this ok, but still error 1 is there. I found out that it shows register 'project page' in Meta:Test and register 'article' in Test (=the article without namespace). Perhaps knowing these differences helps? In Special:Allpages I can select 'Meta' namespace and '(Main)' so i think namespace has been created correctly. In namespace 'Help' it does not work either. --Wissenslogistiker 08:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any news about error 1? --Wissenslogistiker 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another question: I would like to cut out the links in description above in the print version, because this makes it less good viewable. But I would like to have the revision number there. Will you change this? --Wissenslogistiker 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...what are you using it for? What wiki is this and where is it? . Aaron 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed tags from printable versions altogether. Aaron 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is much better. I use wiki as organisational memory system and for creating docs for the company where i am working in. Thatswhy approved article versions have a high interest. ;-) --Wissenslogistiker 08:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users
If a user with editor rights is blocked, would editor rights be automatically stripped or would this have to be done as a separate action? Mr.Z-man 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would have to be manually removed, however, blocked users cannot review revisions while they are blocked, so their flag is useless while blocked. Aaron 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)