Quality assurance and review with BlueSpice for MediaWiki – [teamwork]

Organize reviews in a team
Organize reviews in a team

Sometimes is enough to assign a contact person to a wiki article. You can realize that with the “responsible editors” function in BlueSpice. In order to manage the edits and reviews of articles, images and files in a team, we developed the package Teamwork that is included in the subscription BlueSpice pro.

The quality assurance in a wiki does not only apply to one responsible editor, but is a coordinated interaction between several editors.
Review periods and workflows, in which editors shall act, can be defined.

The underlying system of if-then relations is complex but has the advantage to be adjusted according to the company’s needs.

Let´s take the following standard process for our example: there is a change in an article that has to be approved, rejected or delegated by several editors of various departments. We assume that in the end of the reviewing-workflow there has to be a final approval to assign the article with the official status “accepted and therefore is considered valid.  Let´s go through the following example to show you how this standard procedure works:

At the beginning of 2013 Mrs. Mayer created the page “travel expense accounting” for the organisational handbook. She used the “reminder”-  feature to mark the article for the resubmission, because she already knew that, in the middle of the year, decisions, which cause changes in the article, will be made.  After five months, the article gets the official status “expired”. But Mrs. Mayer is now on maternity leave.

A colleague of accountancy, Mr. Miller, took notice of the expired article. And he knows that the change concerning the new “travel expense accounting” has already been decided. After that he starts a review process which and therefore is the initiator of the workflow.

Mr. Miller puts Mrs. Wilson, who is Mrs. Mayer’s maternity leave representative, into top position of the workflow with a request to add the changes in the regulation to the article. Mrs. Smith from the human resources department and himself are the next reviewers in the workflow with the task to approve the changes. By the way, the list of reviewers can be expanded also in the ongoing process.

During the workflow the article “travel expense accounting” is marked as “Review” to show visitors that an approving process is going on. Additionally the article will be listed on an overview of all workflows. Mr. Miller can modify further settings for the workflow: firstly if a reviewer just can approve or also can edit the page and secondly what shall happen when a reviewer rejects the approval. While the workflow is going on, visitors can see the last accepted version of the article as well as the current draft. But the draft and accepted versions can’t be edited by editors,  who are not part of the workflow. Please notice, that this is due to the permission definitions, which can be assigned individually.

In the statebar you will see "review" and the possibility to approve.
In the statebar you will see “review” and the possibility to “agree”.

Mrs. Wilson renewed the regulation for “travel expense accounting” and approves her edit with the comment “regulation updated to state of 2014-06” and clicks on “Agree” afterwards.  Mr. Miller notices that there is a new number next to the eye symbol in his user area, so he knows that he has to do an approval in a workflow. He calls up the page, proves the changes and also agrees. Now Mrs. Smith is next. If she also agrees, Mr. Miller has to do the final approval. Otherwise, there is the possibility to define, that this last step is not necessary as far as the last reviewer agrees.

If Mrs. Smith – she is the last reviewer – rejects the approval and wants further changes, the workflow starts from the beginning.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply