Proof versions of articles

[Catherine Woodgold]

Suggestion (and I also made this suggestion at [[Talk:life/Draft]]):

Before approving an article, an editor can create a proof copy called for example "life/Proof".  Anybody would be able to edit it, but it would be understood that normally only minor edits such as corrections of spelling errors would be done, plus reverting some of the last few edtis from the "Draft" version pending further discussion.  Hopefully, comments from authors and editors  such as "I read the proof and don't see any errors" would accumulate on the proof talk page, and the editor would then approve the article.

The need for this proof stage is seen by the examples of spelling errors corrected on various approved pages shortly after approval.  It would improve the public image of the articles if these corrections were done before approval rather than after.  This stage may be needed more for pages where a lot of editing is constantly being done so that an editor faces the problem of trying to approve a moving target;  but it may be a good idea to do it for all articles -- there's always one last spelling error even when one is sure there isn't.

[Nancy Sculerati]

I think that this overall concept is a great idea. We have struggled since the very first approved article, Biology, with the 'end-game'. In the forums here, we decided with that first article that once any article was approved, corrections could be made in order to copy edit, but in practice this has always proved difficult, as the current talk page on Life/draft demonstrates - remains so. There are always authors who feel compelled to make changes in content (generally, all of us, mea culpa) and having a simultaneous Approved Article/Draft that would allow that creative process to continue, while a stable Approved Article/ Proof was polished might solve the conflicts inherent in proofing an article that is also, simultaneously, changing in unproofed content. Of course, we do not yet have a style book or copy editing process set in stone (or even pixels  ) but Catherine's proposal of version of an approved article just for copyediting is brilliant- I think, anyway. 

[Zachary Pruckowski]

I agree.  This will become more and more necessary as the ratio of contributors to constables rises, and there are fewer people who can make those edits directly.

[Chris Day]

I agree.  This will become more and more necessary as the ratio of contributors to constables rises, and there are fewer people who can make those edits directly.

I think this will certainly help whom ever is closing the articles for approval. Life was an eye opener when quite major changes were made at the last minute. Even second. A proof version would definitely avoid such issues.

How would this work in practice?  Onloy open for businees at the end game? That would make more sense since we do not want people to confuse it with the Draft version. Possibly even have a redirect to the draft version when it is not actively being used to finalise an approval?

[Zachary Pruckowski]

How would this work in practice?  Onloy open for businees at the end game? That would make more sense since we do not want people to confuse it with the Draft version. Possibly even have a redirect to the draft version when it is not actively being used to finalise an approval?

Step 1:  ToApprove template placed.
Step 2:  48+ hours later, when there's a consensus around a draft, and most people agreeing on it, we move to "Proof phase" and spend 24 hours typo/bug squishing.
Step 3:  24 hours later, or whenever people are happy that we're pretty much clear, the approving constables compares the "Proofed version" to the "Approved version" and makes sure they're similar.  If so, they do the sysop magic.  If the proofed version differs drastically, then something happens.

[David Tribe]

I thoroughly approve of the idea and its a great name for what I personally was trying to manage de facto at Life, praying to myself it wouldn't be seen as authoritarian censorship!.

But  I think the track of a separate [[Name/Proof ]] page might have the disadvantage of confusion and tricky editing problems and defeat the current linear transparent system of history logs that show the passage of changes. (These already have to cope with Name and Name/Draft and having gone thru a few of those Im alert  to the fact that they require extra manual annotation thats not as reliable or transparent as the software database history log system

 However if we talk about a finite limited Proof phase that problem disappears. The 24 48 plus 24 hour time schedule seems about right.

We don't want to stall the momentum of people's enthusiasm for improvement too long, so that  it dies on the vine. A limited Proof phase  keeps hope alive

[Nancy Sculerati]

We just tried a limited proof phase, didn't we? It failed. It is failing still more with every passing moment. If there is fear of a fork with a /proof version, then all I can think of is to lock down an approved version, allow a sysop to accept changes from a designated copyeditor, and let the sysop proof the approved version without designating it as being yet another approved version. If it's a true proof of the approved article,and nothing more,  it really is a first edition - isn't it? There has to be a draft as soon as the article is appoved (locked into a stable version) because creative editing will continue, it is continuing, right along with copyediting. The authors who are editing away right until the last second will continue to do so. The processes of editing (authoring) and copyediting (proofing) must be separated without imposing a moratorium on the draft.  That moratorium is not realistic.

[David Tribe]

Yes, I agree that the attempt at a proof phase failed, but it could have succeeded (I hope!)  if an editor was permitted to revert the edits of people who ignore the ( de facto) proof label. Alternatively, if I understand Nancy accurately, yes we could lock the final version of the proof stage document and list the needed corrections in the talk, and have those manually incorporated by a sysop. This might work.


But the key practical issue, worth full attention, (gives me a feeling of de ja vu all over again, again) is avoidable instability and conflict in the final stages of the approval process. We have it with most big articles and its a time and energy waster.

And I should say this, implementation of rules that have no provision for practical difficulties and complex issues that relate to the quality of the article (gives me a feeling of de ja vu all over again, yet again) is adding to the problem, if not the source of the problem, so its very  important we get the rules better formulated. We only know of these problems from the practical experience of reviewing actual articles. Many of us can see solutions but we legally cannot take action

[Larry Sanger]

I hate to throw cold water on the party, but I want to point out two problems with the suggestion.

First, right now, the approval process is too slow and complicated for my taste.  I don't know precisely how to fix it, but I think it does need to be fixed somehow (including quite possibly a technical solution of some sort, to automate some things that can be done by hand).  Adding a "proof" phase will make it even slower and more complicated.  Quality, as they say, takes time; but I think we can come up with something that isn't so complexified.  Besides--the whole point of having at least two days to review an article is precisely to make some last-minute changes, including copyediting changes.  Perhaps people shouldn't even nominate articles for approval in the first place (or, others should revoke the nomination) if they haven't gotten agreement on everything other than copyediting matters.

As a general principle, if you add extra steps to a content production process, you increase the sluggishness of the process.  This is something I discovered long ago in Nupedia days.  Adding epicycles never helps.  I think we need to think much more creatively about how to design the process.

Second, a proof copy adds a third version of the article.  Unless the draft is locked down temporarily, people might be emboldened to make significant changes on /Draft when others are making changes to /Proof.  This forks the versions.

Here is another problem.  I am not actually confident that people will follow the instructions, and stick to copyediting matters on the /Proof page.  After all, what if, while proofing, someone discovers some howler of a content problem, requiring a new paragraph?  Are you going to require that someone not fix that problem simply because the only editable version of the article is in the copyediting stage?

Now an observation.  The main reason for wanting a "proof" phase rests exactly with copyediting.  Perhaps the solution is to create a class of copyeditors that is empowered to copyedit the main page article (not the draft article)--of course, with oversight by editors.

[Chris Day]

Now an observation.  The main reason for wanting a "proof" phase rests exactly with copyediting.  Perhaps the solution is to create a class of copyeditors that is empowered to copyedit the main page article (not the draft article)--of course, with oversight by editors.

This is the better solution. But all changes to the approved version must also be made to the draft version.

[David Tribe]

Another reason for wanting the proof phase is to simplify approval, although yes,  it might not be work out that way. The problem at the moment is that people are doing things other than copyediting, making completion of the copyediting impossible. We have limiited resources so finding adequate numbers of copyeditors is a challenge. Why cant editors be the copyeditors? Cant you define a class of edits (spelling , punctuation, layout errors,) that are allowed to be fixed?

[Larry Sanger]

Now an observation.  The main reason for wanting a "proof" phase rests exactly with copyediting.  Perhaps the solution is to create a class of copyeditors that is empowered to copyedit the main page article (not the draft article)--of course, with oversight by editors.

This is the better solution. But all changes to the approved version must also be made to the draft version.

True...there's no easy way forward, frankly, without changing the approval system entirely.  We should consider doing that!

[Larry Sanger]

Another reason for wanting the proof phase is to simplify approval, although yes,  it might not be work out that way. The problem at the moment is that people are doing things other than copyediting, making completion of the copyediting impossible. We have limiited resources so finding adequate numbers of copyeditors is a challenge. Why cant editors be the copyeditors? Cant you define a class of edits (spelling , punctuation, layout errors,) that are allowed to be fixed?

Definitely we should define a class of edits that can be fixed--and that's true whether we use a Proof system or allow someone (copyeditors, editors, whatever) to change the approved version.

I think, quite frankly, that we might consider how to have just one version (copy) of an article.

[Larry Sanger]

I think, quite frankly, that we might consider how to have just one version (copy) of an article.

To elaborate: if we simply declared that certain articles were approved, and allowed those approved articles to be directly edited, how could we make that work?  We could restrict future editing to editors only, allowing anyone to propose changes that would then be uploaded by an editor; or we could allow editors to remove the approval tag if changes required such a move.  Maybe neither of these would work, but I think perhaps we should try to make it work.  Frankly, we've discovered that splitting articles into approved and draft creates some extreme difficulties.  Maybe we should find a way to cut the Gordian Knot.

[Stephen Ewen]

Larry, the idea of an approved version is that it is static, agreed to, authenticated. A changing (daily, hourly, moment-by-moment) approved version of an article -- on its face, this is a fundamentally bad idea.

Also, if only editors can edit approved articles -- the idea seems too contrary to strong collaboration from the get-go. And what happens when those articles are written mostly by a team of authors that are very proud of their editor-approved work...now suddenly locked to them? Many would be pretty ticked. And the unintended consequence would be userfied drafts anyway to which the authors would migrate.

The draft version system works very well, in my view--not problem free, but at least we know those problems. I am afraid these other ideas would be much more problematic.

How about a very brief guideline section "Etiquette for drafts" at article approval?  Then, a small template atop the draft:

This is the draft to an already approved article.
Please familiarize yourself with the Etiquette Guidelines for such articles before adding to it.