Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-11733175-20150728100346/@comment-5590118-20150730092540

For everyone rooting for a script peer review system:


 * Why? Why would we go through the trouble of implementing something like that? Why would we go and force peer reviewed code when we only have a handful of active developers?


 * As it is the wiki can remain inactive for days at a time, this in itself should speak volumes as to why peer reviewing is not a good idea.


 * That being said nothing stops one from peer reviewing code now. If you want you can pick a random script and go through its source and suggest to the maintainer better ways to do things you are free to do so.


 * As I see it, by forcing a process like this you don't help make the wiki, and its code, better you just end up pushing users away.


 * Spinning up your own wiki and putting your code there is a very easy process to do and from there you simply distribute it. The only advantage Dev wiki has over this method is that it makes it easier for users, and developers, to find and use scripts by searching a single repository instead of several different wikis. By hindering developers you make it so much more likely that they will use the first method and then we end up in a worse position from when we started.

For the one suggesting off-site code synced to the wiki all packaged up:


 * See everything that I posted above.

The one way that I see this working out is by protecting the main namespace to codeeditor that way documentation pages and code pages are locked and only editable by a select few users who have been entrusted with the tools to edit these pages.

For this to work you must, of course, leave the talk namespace unlocked so that people can use the talk pages for both the documentation and script pages. This allows for users to report bugs and suggest updates/translations much like they do at present.

Now, to get codeeditor I feel that you should get a recommendation from an existing codeeditor to verify that you are indeed trustworthy and that you have a working knowledge of JavaScript, Lua, or CSS. Adding this step simply helps point out to the admins of this wiki that these people are trusted and that they have the knowledge to contribute to the wiki and its various tools.

Lastly, I am strictly opposed to adding any additional processes like code review and packaging. I am also strictly opposed to moving any of the code off-site unless it were to a Wikia managed, gerrit-like repository system.