Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-11733175-20150728100346/@comment-24473195-20150730100437

Shining-Armor wrote: 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?

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. I think the issue here is a cultural problem. The main idea behind a wiki is collaboration and peer review. Wikipedia itself would probably be a site full of porn and nonsense if they didn't enforce some peer review processes. Having few contributors is not an excuse for not reviewing code, it is simply a lazy response to the fact that people would rather author their own work  than work together to fix existing code.

So if people want to move away from the wiki model, then it is best to move away completely and host the code where noone bothers the authors. The lack of developers is simply because unlike normal wikis this one isn't promoted as aggressively like fun wikis such as "disney" and "GOT" and so forth. That in a way is good because there are less vandals.

Anyway, as added security, it may be prudent to categorize or add banners to those scripts that are peer-reviewed by staff and those that aren't reviewed by anyone.

Ultimately, the scripts posted here are automatically deemed as trustworthy by ignorant admins from most of the wikis.

"Given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow" (Linus's_Law).