I think we're saying the same thing.Abd wrote:Nope. No edit should be allowed to go live if not independently reviewed. Actually "article reviewers" should not be allowed to review and approve their own edits. This is basic functional process. Yes, the model needed rethinking. Understatement.CrowsNest wrote:They should have kept it as open as possible. When Flagged Revisions was proposed, that was the time to radically rethink the model. If it was to be the case that logged in users could see a different version than readers, they could have simply used a time based approval process. After a set period, any edit goes live. Maybe even set it proportional to views. If they can't detect all the things a Reviewer is meant to in that set time in 100% of cases, then Wikipedia clearly doesn't work.
(Except perhaps for editorials, explicitly personal opinion, editors at peer-reviewed journals may not review their own articles. Even there some independent review is highly desirable.)
(Anyone should be able to see all edits unless deleted because illegal or seriously disruptive. For all readers, what would be presented by default would be the approved version, but anyone could see the proposed revisions. My opinion, reviewers should be specialized, working on topics where they are knowledgeable, and that work would itself be reviewed as needed.)
A live edit is merely any edit that can be seen without being logged in. Anyone can therefore view them before they go live, if they so wish. The registration process and all logged in page views would be disclaimered up the wazoo.
Perhaps reviewers shouldn't be able to self-review, but then again, an inability to stop incompetent, negligent or bad actors from becoming (or staying) as reviewers, would be another proof the Wikipedia model can never work.
Remember, we're not talking about review in the general sense, but in the Pending Changes/Flagged Revisions sense - a mere cursory check for obvious issues. We're talking about how Wikipedia can still plausibly claim to be Wikipedia, while having some form of review system that works better than their current hope based one.