Matt hit everything i was gonna say right on the head, especially the process Joe takes to edit articles. The one thing I'd add is that the more people we have watching for articles, the more people will see mistakes come through, and the faster they'll be fixed. .djc. On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Warden, Matt wrote: > Madhu wrote: > >So what are you proposing, Dan? > > I don't think Dan is proposing anything. Admin talked about this for > a LONG time (like I said, we've recycled the conversation a couple of > times). Since late July of this year. > > It's more of a natural progression than anyone's idea. To me, it seems > silly to open half of admin's duties (arguably the *more* important and > sacred half) for all the X-number of reasons we discussed and not the > other, having those same reasons and more. > > >Are you saying that non-admins *will* be > >allowed to approve articles? > > We're saying that seems to be a solution for current problems > (stagnation, language barriers, etc.) and that it goes along with the > direction evolt has been headed lately: openness. > > >If so, have you thought out a process for > >this? > > process? > > Assuming we add the checks in the CMS... > > 1. Joe User volunteers to edit an article. > 2. We say: go for it (if no one else has already taken it) > 3a. He does a good job and we all pat him on the back. > 3b. He does an ok job; someone else makes a few more edits; Joe learns the > ropes and does better next time. > 3c. Joe is an asshole and deletes the article. We restore it from backup > and let someone else edit it. Only thing hurt is a day or so lost editing > time. > > > Joe wants to help the community. > > We need to let him. > > Our only other responsibility is to make sure he doesn't fuck up the > community in the process, which we can do with additional precautions and > tools.