William Pietri wrote: > Allow me to quote the whole policy: "If a rule prevents you from > improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That implies, in my view > correctly, that the person editing is presumed to set out with the > intention of making the encyclopedia better. > > I think that fits in nicely with James Alexander's view: we can and > should assume that most editors have already checked their work. Not > against the minutiae of our rules, but against their own intent, and > their understanding of what constitutes an improvement to Wikipedia.
But we aren't checking to ensure that the edits were performed in good faith (as even a gross BLP violation can be). We're checking to ensure that they're appropriate. And again, the main problem is ambiguity. "Double Check" can easily be interpreted to mean that two separate post-submission checks are occurring. It also is a chess term (and could be mistaken for a a reference to that concept). What is your opinion of the proposed name "Revision Review"? David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
