Wikinews talk:Pre-Reviewing

Proposed Pre-Reviewer group

Regarding the new group with elevated privileges; how easy is it to create new groups and assign privileges? I'm concerned this might be too difficult to do, too difficult to achieve consensus for doing, etc. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, thats why this is a proposal after all@Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have stricken some (many) of the privileges proposed for the group. I certainly don't agree that we should have any sort of autoreview happening. But the others I don't disagree with so strongly, but strongly enough to propose we remove them. If no one disagrees with me or otherwise has any input on those privileges, I'll remove them completely.

Are there any other thoughts or concerns regarding the Pre-Reviewer group? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

See also Me Da's response below. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Pre-reviewer group privileges

I'm not sure I agree that pre-reviewers should have the following privileges:

• Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted" (autoreview)

I'm not convinced (but am open to the idea) that we should have an auto-review group at all. Even if we did, I think it should be limited to reviewers and not pre-reviewers. I could be convinced otherwise if a good argument was made in the context of inactive reviewers. But a concern is without a peer-review system in front of all published articles, article quality would suffer. There are also levels of lower quality I'd be willing to accept in order to address the issue of no articles being published for several weeks due to reviewer inactivity.

• Mark revisions as being "accepted" (review)

First I don't see how we programmatically allow pre-reviewers to sight revisions while also preventing them from sighting (which is publishing) new articles. Second, I think that is a role that logically should be limited to reviewers, given it is a form of publishing and requires substantial experience and familiarity with policies and norms. Consider sighting corrections: I don't think corrections should be 'governed' by pre-reviewers. Corrections (and lack thereof) can prove to be detrimental to a publisher's reputation and we aren't good at them currently, in my opinion. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright the privilideges I intend them to have at least are:

Conduct Pre-reviews

Rollback

Review Pending Changes

Everything else can be safely removed.

I would be fine with removing the last one honestly. Let's start with what we have and depending on how accurate/helpful pre-review is we can re-evaluate that later. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)