My big concern is accountability -- not that I don't trust fellow editors, just that I believe it is of paramount importance.
in reply to New site editors
In terms of the technical and social approach to implementing
checks and balances on the editing process, I would like to
see something along the lines of the following.
- The node should go "live" immediately on editing
- If a person's node is edited, they should be autonotified in the chatterbox.
- If the author feels that the editing has been done in error or with no regard for content/intent, there should be an option easily accessible from that node called "Petition to Restore".
- When a petition is made (and I imagine this will be quite rare, since the vast majority of edits are due to the newness of the user), at most ONE editor should be required to approve it in order for the node to be restored to its original glory.
- Point: The original intentions of the poster ought to be given a great deal more weight than the wishes, however well-intentioned, of the editors.
- Effect: Edits would be essentially an assumed unanimous agreement by the editors group. For a petition to be denied (and an edit permanent), every editor must deny it
- Why "petition" and not just "restore"? Users who have not bothered to figure out the correct tags to wrap code in will also not bother to figure out what the "Petition to Restore Node" button does before clicking it. And since there will be users that will click it without useful intent, the hard work of the editors should be protected at a minimum level.
It should also be noted somewhere which editor is responsible for changed nodes as well, so that they may be queried as to the logic behind the changes.
That is all I have thought of at the moment.
Update: I should clarify my assumption that for any of the above to work, node-level locking is a required technology. Thanks tye!