On 1 Oct 2009, at 03:33, Steve Bennett wrote:
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really care if there was some other
way to identify anonymous users, but raw IPs? Ick.
Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink)
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 10/1/09, Michael Peel wrote:
Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) account is
treated, and an IP account is treated? Perhaps using the former would
give an indication to how the latter is treated? I tend to treat both
as equally suspicious
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
Quality is just the default.
Draft(unflagged) Checked Reviewed, perhaps?
I suspect it's actually important to get this right first time - on
en:wp, policy formation is by someone making up a makeshift apparatus
off the top of their head, then
On 9/30/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I reiterate that all experienced editors should try editing as
an IP for a while. See how well our propaganda matches the way we
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels
Draft Checked and quality, but this is under active discussion.
Quality
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
keep track of, the absolutely lousy articles people often pass over
without notice, or
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
The place
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
The process can and should be made mostly invisible to casual editors.
Like I said, you don't want the process to be 'invisible'
to casual editors, you want it to be *transparently
2009/9/29 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
The place where the comparison to NPP falls short is that NPP doesn't
*do* anything, except coordinate with other people using the
feature and people don't use it because it doesn't do anything
snip
To
David Goodman wrote:
If enWikipedia has only 4,000 active editors, and we don't do better
at this than, we are going to keep up with only a very few articles.
The plan will work , though, for the most watched articles,
fortunately where they are needed, because that's the ones where
people
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
UI fail.
There is no reason for you to know or care that your edit isn't being
displayed to the general public. It's being displayed to you, it's
being displayed to all the other
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
backlog
2009/9/27 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
to keep an eye on it. It is possible that having
2009/9/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
2009/9/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
and the conclusion I meant to add: patrolling will, potentially, be
able to supplant RC patrol as we know it now; because
patrolled-revisions is basically a tool for avoiding RC duplication
and for making revision-management easier. It will
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
Well there are several different types of things that people do, and
2009/9/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
Well there are several
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
But RC-patrol and review flagging are very similar and can both be
done by endless slogging.
Slogging is slogging. Slogging is not editing.
I just understand that there are better ways to do it, (whatever
that means), ways to do it better, and
2009/9/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
But RC-patrol and review flagging are very similar and can both be
done by endless slogging.
Slogging is slogging. Slogging is not editing.
I disagree, but I don't see the relevance anyway. Whether you
On 26/09/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check the history. I'm not
Yes, I sincerely hope that we don't use it more than we use protection
now. That's the promise we've all been making outside the community
for a long time, I don't think we should prove the reporters right. :)
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
submitted a form to a completely opaque
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
backlog builds up and it takes a few
2009/9/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/9/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
editing dead.
No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 100%
2009/9/26 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is
that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To
some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged
revision some kind of counter
2009/9/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Markierungsstatistik
Those numbers would be a disaster. This I think is why the trial is so
limited.
5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
too many people say Oh, I'm not
PPCD:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
- and unfogiveable only entered
+and unforgiveable only entered
- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
+but from a logical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
-a logical limitation on the usage of the
Your edits have been submitted for review.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
PPCD:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
- and unfogiveable only entered
+and unforgiveable only entered
- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write
2009/9/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
The fact of the matter was then, remains so, and will remain so, that
some articles are just not as notable, and therefore won't get seen
and won't get checked on anyone's schedule.** There is no issue of
unforgivability' involved at all, even if we can
2009/9/27 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
On 26/09/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
editing dead.
You'd think so, but that's not what the german
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
You'd think so, but that's not what the german statistics say- the
anonymous still edit at about the same rate.
Do we know how many anonymous editors made more than one edit anyway?
Perhaps most of the people that made multiple edits registered
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. I don't see why notability should be a factor.
Notability might be the wrong word. 'Degree of interest' is perhaps
the more accurate term. No interest = no page views = no checks
for... topical completeness, bland writing, wandering
40 matches
Mail list logo
