Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24531999-20160514180240/@comment-24473195-20160524122319

Saftzie wrote: Wikia's content review isn't about catching errors or any other code quality issue. Although they say code that causes errors will be rejected(ref), it's completely about whether the change opens any JavaScript authentication/authorization holes. I'm pretty sure reviewers only look at the code. They don't actually test it. Exactly, and for that reason there isn't any point in reviewing code with fatal errors that won't even work at all. Even if the reviewer allows it, MediaWiki will certainly block or ignore the script (which might result in a complaint in the forums or to support). It is incredibly simple to reject these automatically. If people want to create drafts they can do it in their own user namespace.

> I think a bigger problem would be at dev, where any autoconfirmed user can edit any module imported by any (possibly several) wikis.

It is not the end of the world if a script doesn't work. In fact, it is entirely possible to only load a specific older revision that won't change no matter what people do (aside from deleting the page). This functionality might not work for reviewed revisions in the MediaWiki namespace but will certainly work for personal scripts.

Also, high profile scripts can only be edited by code-editors anyway. That is the case with ajaxRC and others.