CZ:Approval Process: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== The provisional nature of this process == | == The provisional nature of this process == | ||
This process is provisional and probably temporary in this form. The use of templates, in particular, may be regarded as a temporary stopgap measure; eventually, we will want to integrate certain procedures into the software itself. But it is actually desirable to test out the process first "by hand" before stabilizing it in code. | |||
== Who may approve == | == Who may approve == | ||
For any given topic, only editors who may be considered ''experts'' on that topic may approve an article on that topic. | |||
Expert editors may approve articles in either of two configurations: individually or as part of a group. | |||
'''Individual approval.''' Editors working individually may approve articles if they have not contributed significantly to the article; there is, in this way, a kind of peer review. No single editor may approve an article to which that editor has contributed significantly. In other words, no editor may approve his or her own work ''singlehandedly.'' | |||
'''Group approval.''' If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors. | |||
== When and how to use the <nowiki>{{ToApprove}}</nowiki> template == | == When and how to use the <nowiki>{{ToApprove}}</nowiki> template == | ||
Revision as of 01:54, 21 December 2006
Overview
Here, in broad strokes, is how the approval process goes. An editor decides than article is ready to approve, or nearly so. If the editor has worked on it him/herself, he or she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it. So then (one of) the approving editor(s) places a {{ToApprove}} template on the article's talk page. Then, after some designated amount of time, a sysop (a person with "sysop" administrative rights on the wiki) then freezes the approved version of the article on the main article page. At the same time, work on the article continues on a "Draft" page easily accessible from the main article page. New versions, found on that "Draft" can then be nominated to replace the approved version, and the procedure repeats.
The provisional nature of this process
This process is provisional and probably temporary in this form. The use of templates, in particular, may be regarded as a temporary stopgap measure; eventually, we will want to integrate certain procedures into the software itself. But it is actually desirable to test out the process first "by hand" before stabilizing it in code.
Who may approve
For any given topic, only editors who may be considered experts on that topic may approve an article on that topic.
Expert editors may approve articles in either of two configurations: individually or as part of a group.
Individual approval. Editors working individually may approve articles if they have not contributed significantly to the article; there is, in this way, a kind of peer review. No single editor may approve an article to which that editor has contributed significantly. In other words, no editor may approve his or her own work singlehandedly.
Group approval. If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors.