What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

I just got past the 5k mark on SO, and at first it was very unclear where/how I could vote on tag wiki edits. I was expecting a new queue for these reviews, so I spent around 10 minutes looking in various places where I could do this but still no clue.

Then while doing some Suggested edits reviews, I stumbled on a post that was adding a lot of extra content to the original message, I was about to reject it as Invalid edit, until I noticed the little tag wiki line to the right of the title.

I think it's very confusing to have the tag wiki edit reviews in the same queue as regular edit reviews, because if you don't see that it's a tag wiki excerpt or tag wiki, it's typically edits that add content and should be rejected as *Invalid edit*s if they were on regular posts.

Also it's in my opinion you have to be in a very different mindset to review a tag wiki edit compared to a regular edit. Reviewing tag wiki edits is hard, this requires in case of not so well known tags to go out there and find information yourself and see if the edit corresponds. If I feel like doing tag wiki edits reviews I should be able to do as such without having to play the lottery in the "Suggested edits" to find one.

Why not put a separate queue for this? This would make it more clear what exactly you're reviewing, with no risk of confusion especially for users who just got this privilege like me. These are 2 very distinct tasks that require 2 different mindsets and so should not be mixed IMO.

share|improve this question
6  
It's more annoying that the wiki body is often shown for review before the tag excerpt. –  CodeGnome Jan 27 '13 at 18:17
2  
see also meta.stackexchange.com/questions/152209/… –  Kate Gregory Jan 27 '13 at 19:19
add comment

2 Answers

A separate review queue for tag wikis would be actively bad, because variation in the review queue keeps reviewers thinking, reading carefully, and acting like humans instead of robots.

Sometimes a lot of information should be added to someone's post. Sometimes a lot of information should not be added to a tag wiki. If you don't notice if a post is an answer, question, or tag wiki, you're probably not paying good enough attention to review well.

Also, reviewing tag wikis is sometimes harder than reviewing questions and answers. It's not always or even usually harder. Edits that are too minor are too minor whether it's a question, answer, or tag wiki. Edits that improve terrible formatting are good for all three. Edits that improve an explanation of something within the scope of the post are good for all three (and these sometimes add significant text to the post ...and sometimes make it shorter).

A reviewer who is not up for reviewing tag wikis can still be a perfectly good reviewer. But such a reviewer is, consequently, probably not up for reviewing a significant percentage of question and answer edits also. Since they are already clicking Skip much of the time for questions and answers, as sth suggested they can do so for tag wikis too.

As for users who are reluctant to review tag wiki edits because of concern about understanding whether or not factual information presented in them is accurate:

  1. This doesn't apply to all tag wiki edits, though it may apply to most edits to a previously blank tag wiki.

  2. This also applies to a significant fraction of question and answer edits. Even fixing typos often requires knowing whether or not an unusually written expression has a special meaning.

  3. This reluctance is good and we need more tag wiki editors like you who have it. As ben is uǝq backwards commented:

    If you're concerned you're more likely to attempt to understand what's going on and thereby allow better edits then serial approvers.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for the insightful response, but I still do not agree. Sure a bit of variation is good, but here we're talking about a completely different change in methodology: for reviewing regular posts, usually checking the post itself is enough. For tag wiki edits, you have to most of the time (from the few I've done so far) go on Google, do a bit of research and this can easily take a bit of time. I don't mind spending 10 minutes on a tag wiki edit at all, but this has nothing to do with the way I review regular edits, so it has nothing to do in the same queue. –  Charles Menguy Jan 28 '13 at 15:31
add comment

I don't think these edit suggestions are so special that they require their own queue. I think the reviewer should just pay attention to see what he is reviewing. The first tag wiki you stumble upon might come as a surprise, but once you know what to expect there shouldn't be much of a problem.

If you feel like you don't have the expertise to review a certain tag wiki edit you can always click "skip". Having a separate queue wouldn't make reviewing these edits any easier.

share|improve this answer
7  
I think my main point is that reviewing a tag wiki edit has almost nothing to do with reviewing a regular edit, since reviewing tag wikis is so much harder. It doesn't make sense to put 2 completely different things in the same queue, otherwise we might as well have only 1 global review queue. –  Charles Menguy Jan 27 '13 at 18:06
    
@CharlesMenguy Questions and answers are different; do you think edits for them should be in separate queues? –  Eliah Kagan Jan 28 '13 at 9:19
    
@EliahKagan You missed the point I was being sarcastic, of course question and answers should not be mixed, just as tag wiki and post edits should be separated. –  Charles Menguy Jan 28 '13 at 15:23
    
@CharlesMenguy I didn't miss your point. I'm saying your point is wrong. Edits on questions and answers belong in the same queue, and edits on tag wikis belong there too. –  Eliah Kagan Jan 28 '13 at 15:28
1  
@EliahKagan Edits on questions and answers have very similar rules; make the post clearer, don't change its meaning. On the other had tag wikis you're supposed to be adding information. –  Richard Tingle Oct 2 '13 at 10:12
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .