Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions

This policy proposal concerns the local implementation of Extension:FlaggedRevs.

How it works

See Extension:FlaggedRevs

Users who have been around for some time can be granted (possibly automatically) editor rights. This would let them review page revisions. When a revision is reviewed it is tagged in the edit history as "stable", and article development can proceed with the most recent revision. If changes to the page seem constructive, any editor can review the new version as "stable".

All registered users, even new users, are shown the most recent version. For the outside world (that is, anonymous users), either (which do you prefer?):

• The newest reviewed revision is the default one seen by our readers (non-logged in users) unless there are none. There will be a "current revision" tab.
• There will be a "stable version" tab, and the default version will still be the current one.

Note that users cannot review pages that they cannot edit (such as if it was protected or they were blocked).

When an article revision is marked stable, the current revision of each template, transcluded page, and image in the article is noted. These revisions are used when displaying the stable version of the article, so that the version displayed matches the version that was marked stable.

Rationale for use

See Wikipedia:Pushing to validation, Wikipedia:Why stable versions, and Wikipedia:Static version

Additionally, this could reduce much of the use of Wikipedia:Semi-protection, allowing for more users to edit those pages.

When to review a revision

In general

Once a page has reached a good level of content and rigor, it becomes less advantageous to keep open editing of it which immediately affects the content readers see. As the depth of the article increases, it becomes more difficult to add anything useful. Edits are more likely to be cruft, testing, and random vandalism. Most reviews will fall under this category. To be reviewed, such pages must:

• Be clear of vandalism
• Have been around for several days
• Have some depth (not a one line stub)
• Have been checked for basic accuracy
• Have been spell checked
• Follow WP:NPOV, WP:LIVING, and WP:NOT
• Be readable (not cluttered-up pages with no wikilinks) and not tagged for cleanup.

For anti-vandalism purposes

• If a page is high profile
• If a page experiences frequent drive-by vandalism
• To deal with Biographies of living persons concerns
• To deal with WP:OTRS complaints

When to depreciate reviews

Revision can be untagged if needed as well. This can happen if:

• A revision, upon second look, appears not to meet the above requirements
• If Biographies of living persons concerns arise
• If an edit war arises involving a reviewed version
• If a review war arises

Editor rights

Granting

This will be done fairly liberally. Any trusted editor will be granted rights automatically, when the account satisfies the following criteria:

1. Is older than 60 days.
2. Has more than 500 edits.
3. Has confirmed an e-mail account.

Any administrator can grant Editor rights to a user at any time if they seem trustworthy to use the tools, even if they don't meet the above criteria.

Revoking

Administrators can also revoke the flag if needed (much like blocking an account). This can happen if:

• The user violates WP:3RR (with respect to reviews, which it should include) repeatedly
• The user deliberately reviews vandalism
• The user engages in other repeated disruption involving reviews

Reviewer rights

Reviewers can mark pages not only as "stable", but as "quality". Such revisions will take precedence over normal "stable" version as far as what revision the software selects as the default.

Bureaucrats can grant or remove Reviewer status from users. In the future this flag may be given to trusted users with an editing history that proves they are willing to fact check aggressively, have some understanding of the topics, and are trusted to know their own limitations (such as avoiding reviewing as "accurate" a complex math topic they don't understand). However, given the issue of scalability, it would be better to limit it to the following groups:

• Members of WP:OTRS who may use it to deal with serious complaints if they don't feel page protection is desirable.