The approval process

[Catherine Woodgold]

I like how David Tribe handled the mechanics of moving the Complex Number page into approval status (acting as a constable):  reverting my last edit and putting up the version that an editor had selected as an approved version.  I think that's important so that readers can depend on the articles:  that an editor (acting as an editor and named as such) sign off on the actual version that's approved.

I don't see why the page history was left at Complex number, though.  I think it would have been better to move the page history to Complex number/Draft.  As it stands, what we will end up with after many versions is the meaningful page history (with detailed editing) split into two parts, the early part at Complex Number and the later part at Complex number/Draft.  I think it's better to have it all in one place, not split like that.  If it's not technically possible to move the page history, perhaps we should begin with Articlename/Draft in the first place, with Articlename being just a redirect to the draft.

[Larry Sanger]

Catherine, you make an excellent point.  I'd be in favor of changing the process that way.  Why not put it in the Editorial Council suggestion box?  That would be an excellent example of a small point that could (I hope) be put through the Editorial Council quickly--I mean, I'd like to see if it could be, as a sort of test case.

[Derek Harkness]

The page history could move to article/draft if we make a minor change in the process of splitting the article and draft versions.

Currently, we make article/draft as a new page and lock the existing page. This breaks the history.

Instead. When the article is approved: Move the article to the location article/draft. The history will move with the article. Then copy the approved version back to the name Article. So Article is a new page with no history and Article/Draft is the old page with history moved to a new location.

[Chris Day]

Instead. When the article is approved: Move the article to the location article/draft. The history will move with the article. Then copy the approved version back to the name Article. So Article is a new page with no history and Article/Draft is the old page with history moved to a new location.

Agree, this is by far the best approach.

[David Tribe]

I agree to this procedure. Its a pity we didn't do it like this in the first place.

[Larry Sanger]

Actually, I think this is a small enough change that we can simply implement it--let's put it in the new draft of the article approval process, if it isn't there already (I vaguely remember it being there already actually).

[Matt Innis]

The only problem I see is when the approved version is not the last version, which seems to be a good possibility especially with these articles that have trouble with copyediting at the last minute.

[Aleta Curry]

Could I just comment on this part of Catherine's original post:

... perhaps we should begin with Articlename/Draft in the first place, with Articlename being just a redirect to the draft.

Now that I've had time to observe the approval process in action, I think that starting with the Articlename/Draft is a really good idea.

I've had some visceral reactions to seeing significant errors in un-approved versions of articles, (after all, none of us writes perfectly the first time) and I'm thinking that having "Draft" on the page in the first place would help. (I should add, though, that the majority of articles are really good, even in draft form, and the errors are usually minor.)

This might help with the perception of credibility with the wiki format as well, especially from reluctant academics.

[Chris Day]

... perhaps we should begin with Articlename/Draft in the first place, with Articlename being just a redirect to the draft.

Now that I've had time to observe the approval process in action, I think that starting with the Articlename/Draft is a really good idea.

This is an interesting idea and sets up the subpage structure right from the beginning. A postive side-effect is that it may encourage people to edit the articles to an approval quality status more quickly in an effort to lose the draft tag.

[Larry Sanger]

Aleta, Chris, I am inclined to agree this is a good idea.  The difficulty, however, comes in linking between articles.  I guess whenever someone creates a new article, that article is immediately moved to a "draft" subpage.

It's a good idea.  Something to include as part of a future Big Subpagination.

[Robert_W_King]

If going to say, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Gizmoduck&action=edit and http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Gizmoduck

The link that says "You can create this page", I would automatically throw a /DRAFT in the url, that way whenever a new page is created it's automagically started in the draft area.  That would at least ensure every article created from now on would be a /draft.

[Larry Sanger]

Robert, that probably wouldn't be a good idea, because then links to [[Gizmoduck]] would be broken, even though they shouldn't be.  Creating new pages would add an extra step as follows: (1) go to [[newpage]]; (2) edit the page and type #REDIRECT [[Newpage/Draft]]; (3) save; (4) follow the link to the new draft page, and edit and save it.

[Stephen Ewen]

I have always felt drafting all articles in draftspace is the superior way to go.  A main reason is that is takes away the psychology of immediacy, which can lead to contributing being viewed by some as something of a game to win at.  Move all articles to draftspace by default and that is quelled, leading to better overall wiki behavior, article quality, and as Chris says, higher speed at bringing articles to approval.  The one drawback I see is that, for some, a lack of a psychology of immediacy can be a disincentive from contributing as much. But with the goal of approval there, perhaps that is negated. I think it is at least worth a pilot. 

[Aleta Curry]

The one drawback I see is that, for some, a lack of a psychology of immediacy can be a disincentive from contributing as much.

Perhaps, and as you say, for some...but then again, it would remove the intimidation of immediacy for others.

I think it is at least worth a pilot.

I do, too!

[Matt Innis]

This is a winner idea.  It solves many problems as noted above, plus we no longer have to be concerned that an article that is not approved reflects the opinons of CZ editors.  It automatically gives the impression that the article is 'under construction'.  Editors will be motivated to finish what they start.  All good.  Give Aleta a Gold Star! (Do we have one of those?)