William Pietri wrote:
At the end, if there is no decision to extend
the trial or to permanently adopt Pending Changes, the community will
probably need to go and switch all Pending Changes articles to something
else. (Unless they'd like us just to switch them en masse to, say,
On 15 June 2010 01:12, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 06/14/2010 09:56 PM, Risker wrote:
If there is no intention at this time to stop the trial and
deactivate the extension on August 15th, I'd like the WMF and the
developers
to say so now.
This is, as the community
To Risker:
*Edits by reviewers to articles with pending changes are automatically
accepted.
NO, the reviewer has to manually accept the new revision, and you could have
asked **before** creating this mountain of drama and FUD on enwiki, or
tested the configuration yourself, or read the
Cenarium sysop wrote:
To Risker:
*Pending changes will help to reduce visibility of vandalism and BLP
violations
Yes, classic protection is way too rigid for Wikipedia today, and has always
been too rigid. The flexibility of pending changes protection will allow to
use protection where
On 15 June 2010 02:38, Cenarium sysop cenarium.sy...@gmail.com wrote:
To Risker:
*Edits by reviewers to articles with pending changes are automatically
accepted.
NO, the reviewer has to manually accept the new revision, and you could
have
asked **before** creating this mountain of drama
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
At the end, if there is no decision to extend
the trial or to permanently adopt Pending Changes, the community will
probably need to go and switch all Pending Changes articles to something
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
There has never been agreement for more than the 2,000. It will be
Wha?
The 2000 limit was a technical thing which came later, and not from
the community.
I don't think it's a bad thing, even outside of the simple
On 15/06/2010, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
*Pending changes will help with disputes.
No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in
the
trial policy (scope section), that pending changes protection, level 1 or
2,
should not be used on pages
Can you please identify methods in which we can measure the improvement
here? Are you proposing, even before the trial starts, to start including
articles that do not meet the criteria for page protection? Let's be
clear,
Cenarium; the trial is very specifically only to be used on pages
We could also implement as scheduled, but refrain from using pending changes
in mainspace until we're ready. This way, reviewers could start testing in
Wikipedia namespace before it's rolled out on articles. The issue of using
level 2 PC-protection is not resolved yet, so we may request a
On 14 June 2010 09:12, Cenarium sysop cenarium.sy...@gmail.com wrote:
We could also implement as scheduled, but refrain from using pending changes
in mainspace until we're ready. This way, reviewers could start testing in
Wikipedia namespace before it's rolled out on articles. The issue of
The issue is not people objecting but preparation of the trial, so it's not
chaos. Or you could yourself help in the preparation of the trial, so we'd
go faster ?
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2010 09:12, Cenarium sysop
On 06/14/2010 01:12 AM, Cenarium sysop wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Cenarium
sysopcenarium.sy...@gmail.comwrote:
You'll soon have your answer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#Proposing_a_delay_to_trial_implementation.
There are many outstanding
No. This may not be ideal but that is certainly worse. Damn the torpedos!
~A
On Monday, June 14, 2010, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 06/14/2010 01:12 AM, Cenarium sysop wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Cenarium
sysopcenarium.sy...@gmail.comwrote:
You'll soon have
Despite the fact that I do have reservations about several aspects of this
trial deployment, I do recognise that this is indeed a *trial*, and that the
purpose of a trial is to learn, and to try out new ideas to see whether they
work in whole or in part. The opportunity to learn is the reason
On 06/14/2010 09:56 PM, Risker wrote:
If there is no intention at this time to stop the trial and
deactivate the extension on August 15th, I'd like the WMF and the developers
to say so now.
This is, as the community requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that,
unless the community clearly
There has never been agreement for more than the 2,000. It will be
necessary to ask the community at that point whether to expand ,
continue, or end the trial. I would not assume that the consensus
will be to expand it-- I frankly haven't the least idea whether it
will prove a resounding success
On 06/13/2010 03:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There has never been agreement for more than the 2,000. It will be
necessary to ask the community at that point whether to expand ,
continue, or end the trial.
Ok. Since the 2000 limit initially came from the Foundation side of
things rather than
On 14 June 2010 01:42, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 06/13/2010 03:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There has never been agreement for more than the 2,000. It will be
necessary to ask the community at that point whether to expand ,
continue, or end the trial.
Ok. Since the 2000
You'll soon have your answer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#Proposing_a_delay_to_trial_implementation.
There are many outstanding issues to address and still quite a deal of
preparation to be made. Again people didn't get involved until a launch date
was fixed, it may
10 days is a bit short for preparation, as most people didn't get involved
until a launch date was fixed. It would have been nice if we had had a bit
more time, but we should broadly be ready. It's also not impossible that we
request some configuration changes before or during the trial.
On Wed,
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit
a date for the minimum feature set, based on the theory that people
wanted this ASAP. But naturally, we could
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit
a date for the minimum feature set, based on the theory that people
wanted this ASAP. But naturally, we could
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit
a date for the minimum feature set,
There was always going to be a bit of Damned if you do, Damned if you
don't; It's just unavoidable in a community this large.
~A
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
As I'm actively involved in the preparation of the trial, I assure 10 days
is short. Most people don't get involved until a launch date is fixed,
especially in this situation where we had to wait for a year with nothing
coming so people just waited for something consistent to get involved. And
now
On 12/06/2010 18:13, William Pietri wrote:
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit
a date for the minimum feature set, based on the theory that people
On 12 June 2010 22:04, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
On 12/06/2010 18:13, William Pietri wrote:
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
Personally, just launch the damn thing already!
+1
- d.
On 06/12/2010 01:27 PM, Cenarium sysop wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Amory Meltzeramorymelt...@gmail.comwrote:
There was always going to be a bit of Damned if you do, Damned if you
don't; It's just unavoidable in a community this large.
As I'm actively involved in the
On 06/12/2010 02:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 June 2010 22:04, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote:
On 12/06/2010 18:13, William Pietri wrote:
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
Personally,
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
3. This set of pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions
...still has the old vocabulary, and still refers to patrolled revisions
as part of the trial (which is a separate
On 8 June 2010 12:34, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Might it be worth gathering all Flagged Revs pages and moving them to
[[WP:Pending Changes/Historical discussions/...]] with redirects, to make
clear what's what?
Excellent idea. Or simply mark all the existing discussions as
historical,
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
3. This set of pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions
...still has the old vocabulary, and still refers to
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:34 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
3. This set of pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions
...still has the old vocabulary, and still
I think I have an idea how to do it.
The Flagged revisions main page summarizes FR and where it went (patrolled
revisions, pending changes etc), with links to all major pages on the topic.
So its a reference to provide back information on past discussions,
proposals etc.
Those pages which are
Because it is an open, public mailing list where meta-discussion is
supposed to be going on about the English Wikipedia.
In any case, it's basically guaranteed there will be a portion of the
community who will not be ready and a portion who will apparently be
caught completely off guard
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:54 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing needed - can someone reply to this thread with a list of all
Flagged Revs related pages (whether RFCs, proposals, or major threads) so
we
can see what's out there?
I don't have an organized list, but I started a stub
On 06/08/2010 04:15 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
If you really want to know i the community is ready... why are posting
on the email list, which only has a small amount of people paying
attention, You should be discussing with the community on wiki where
more people pay attention.
I've also
A formal yes? Wasn't there a big poll and discussion on this alrready?
Plus if you were following wikitech-l you would know that they aren't
exactly ready
FinalRapture
On Jun 8, 2010 12:17 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Assuming all goes well, we're about a week away from
39 matches
Mail list logo
