Template talk:Incorrect: Difference between revisions
→What about example needs attention?: How about a two-stage process?
(→What about example needs attention?: How about a two-stage process?) |
|||
Line 20:
::* The more serious cases are visually distinguished by different colors for the infoboxes.
::—[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::: I dislike a formal approach for a few reasons, but I think a two-stage approach could avoid most of the problems:
:::* It requires greater familiarity/experience/training with the template set for proper use, and we already have cases where people are using the wrong template just because that's the one they've seen before; over-formalization has already put us in a position of having several ENA templates that see little or no use at all.
::::* This could be averted by having a generic ENA template, and have instances of that generic template replaced with a small set of more formal ones on an as-needed basis.
:::* We've seen the wrong concerns raised about code examples not just because of unfamiliarity with more appropriate templates, but because of a misconception of the reviewer of either the code, the task description, or some other factor like "is this allowed?", and formalizing those concerns will give weight to a likely incorrect impression.
::::* This could be also be averted with the two-stage ENA process as well, as long as the person replacing the ENA instance applies critical thinking.
:::* Think of bad vs improvement cases as a form of triage. Triage is only really helpful when there is a shortage of resources to meet demand, and I don't think there are any languages with enough examples marked as requiring attention where it's unreasonable to think that a contributor wouldn't be able to review the complete set for his language in a short period of time; I don't think prioritization of ENA instances will affect the general tendency to deal with the easy problems first. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 02:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
| |||