2009/8/31 Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org:
On 8/31/09 7:35 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
We've been planning to get a test setup together since conversations at
the Berlin developer meetup in April, but actual implementation of it is
pending coordination with Luca and his team.
My understanding
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- it allows us to create blamemaps for history pages, so that you can
quickly see who added a specific piece of text. This is very
interesting for anyone who's ever tried to navigate a long version
history to find out who
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage
vanishes.
Perhaps.
Emily
On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage
vanishes.
Full disclosure can also level the field.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:33, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A simple version of that is already implemented. Go to
http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page
and click the check text tab to see it, hover over a piece of text,
and click it. The hover shows the username, and
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/8/31 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
Yes. Incredibly useful. What I'd like would be when colors are shown, if
you
hover over some text it pops up a hover of the user who wrote it and when
it
was written (the revision).
I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our
interface without adequate testing. Quality or trust in an article is
not a simple numerical matter, much less a rough scale of a few
categories. it will take a lot of experimentation with it until the
rest of us can decide if its
Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been
active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into
oblivion and have very low average trust levels?
Sometimes. However, on new page patrol, I'll sometimes completely
rewrite a page, both for practice and
Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it
is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually
want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still
widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it?
Well, that's what I'm worried about,
- it allows us to create blamemaps for history pages, so that you
can quickly see who added a specific piece of text. This is very
interesting for anyone who's ever tried to navigate a long version
history to find out who added something.
I have to admit, I'd find this incredibly useful
True. The moment you give people a tool, many people will simplistically
assume what it does or rely unthinkingly on it.
- WikiTrust might be described as a way to see how long an edit endured
and how much trust it seems to have; in most users' hands it'll be its
colored red/blue so its
In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
- WikiTrust might be described as a way to see how long an edit
endured
and how much trust it seems to have; in most users' hands it'll be
its
colored red/blue so its right/wrong.
-
2009/8/31 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our
interface without adequate testing.
It appears we're not and Wired completely jumped the gun. There is no
timeframe for release of this thing even as an optional extra.
- d.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
If it is introduced, then I would suggest introducing it as a gadget for
admins and experienced users, a limited number at first. Communally, it
shouldn't be available to all, but to those who request it and seem to
Not saying I disagree with you, but with that in mind and looking at the
test example, I'd say that the more useful concept isn't the ability to rate
editors - which I could do without, it's a little too anti-AGF imho - but
its usefulness as a metric of how many people have edited a particular
On 31/08/2009, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The trust coloring is clearly the most controversial part of the
technology. However, it's also integral to it, and we think it could
be valuable. If we do integrate it, it would likely be initially as a
user preference. (And of course no
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:55 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Here's one
http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/ba-tz.htm
It's so interesting, as an australian, seeing which of each of those
pairs looks normal to me. Eg, Garden (not yard), Gas or Natural Gas
both seem ok to me, Pickle (US) not
16 matches
Mail list logo
