Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-11733175-20150728100346/@comment-24473195-20150728111913

The original problem here was the notion that anyone who can edit a javascript is competent to make edits to any script. I personally think that the code-editor group should be composed of people who can do more than simply pasting a couple of scripts here. Anyone who is somewhat smart can glue together small scraps of code and make it work well enough with lots of exploits and bugs.

There is no good approach that doesn't involve scripters jumping through hoops to prove their competency. There is also no way that this wiki will ever be taken seriously if scripters don't peer review each other's scripts/modules/css before they go live. The whole notion of trusting because they are code-editors doesn't make sense to me or to "wikia staff" (based on their github activity).

My view is that code-editors must  peer review each other's work, before submitting their own work which in turn must also be reviewed before going live. Ultimately if it is a script that may have serious performance issues, we could always request a review from Special:Contact.

I've observed wikia staff in their github and for the vast majority of merges/commits every single change/addition to the code must be peer reviewed, and these are competent presumably trained developers with years of experience.

So if competent individuals require peer review who are we to make changes that may affect the whole wikia without any review?