[WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story? For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the future some time. What's the policy going to be? You get different answers depending on who you ask. This is because people tend to tell you how they want it to be rather than what the community actually approved. Even Jimbo and the foundation staff have been guilty of this. What is being implemented has two parts, flagged protection and patrolled revisions. The important part is flagged protection. It is a new kind of protection besides full and semi. When an article is flagged-protected readers will not see a new version until it has been flagged. 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No, only on pages that are flagged-protected individually. I expect there will be a push to flagged-protect all BLPs (biographies of living people) but nothing is decided yet. I would personally support that if there are enough reviewers to keep the backlog short. 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? This is very much undecided. Some think becoming a reviewer should be like autoconfirmation, some think like rollback, while a few think it should be harder to get than adminship. Hopefully it will be adjusted depending on how many reviewers are needed. 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? I don't know yet. There is a test implementation at http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org 4) Is there any automatic flagging? There are actually three levels of flagged protection. In semi flagged protection edits by autoconfirmed users are automatically flagged. In intermediary flagged protection (probably the most common case) only edits by reviewers are automatically flagged. In full flagged protection only administrators (not reviewers) can flag. 5) Are you supposed to check an entire article prior to flagging it? How confident are you meant to be? The reviewer is only meant to check the diff from the previous flagged version. It should be checked for: * conflict with the Biographies of Living People policy * vandalism or patent nonsense * copyright violations * legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Reviewers are not required to check for neutrality, original research, sources, etc. Of course, obvious cases are better reverted right away than flagged. I expect there will be some conflict over this. In my opinion it is very important that we keep the flow of Bold, Revert, Discuss. Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? Who knows? We'll see. 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing articles when they don't have any instant gratification? Good question. Perhaps that an edit will eventually go live unless it's really bad. 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) or non-flagged version? I think flagged, but you can change it in your preferences. 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? I am quite sure yes. 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? Surely not. The potential problems depend on how quickly edits get flagged and how strict reviewers are. If it takes weeks before anyone even looks at an edit and reviewers refuse to flag anything they don't actively like, then we are no more open than Britannica. After all, I can email a suggested change to them and probably get a reply. Our advantages are: * You can edit right in the code rather than describe your change in an email * Edits don't just get lost in someones inbox. Eventually an edit is either approved or reverted. * Speed, if we manage * A more open attitude, I wish Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars keep editing. 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? Hopefully. Especially for BLPs I think this has a lot of potential. Currently a damaging edit can last way too long in articles about obscure but notable people. So far I ignored the second part: patrolled revisions. This is enabled on all articles, but readers see the latest version whether flagged or not. It is used to know whether an edit has been checked or not, so the time of recent changes patrollers can be used more efficiently. Whether it will actually be used on all articles is unsure. I expect it will be used mostly on BLPs, and on other articles if the reviewers have time. Finally, this is supposed to be a two month trial. What happens after that is very uncertain. For details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisionsand the subpages linked at the top. /Apoc2400 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote: After all, I can email a suggested change to them and probably get a reply. Actually, I've done this (before their recent contributions stuff), and got a reply within 2 days. I was quite surprised. So I suppose we should adopt new slogan, 'Wikipedia - we're 86% more open to feedback than the Encyclopedia Britannica!' -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote: snip Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars keep editing. If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked edit this page? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying you are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving. Personally, I think regulars need to encounter the same delays as everyone else. It will open their eyes to what it is like editing logged out or without an account (more reversion of edits). Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked edit this page? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying you are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving. Good point. Personally, I think regulars need to encounter the same delays as everyone else. It will open their eyes to what it is like editing logged out or without an account (more reversion of edits). Yes. That feature seems pretty problematic. It sounds like auto confirmation for established editors will make Wikipedia even more of a clique, by raising the barrier to entry. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story? For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the future some time. What's the policy going to be? I was trying to answer this myself last night, so here's my best attempt :-) So, quick questions: 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No. It's effectively a new form of protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection#Description ...so basically, any page that might get semi-protected might get this. The original idea of use this for BLPs , to my surprise, doesn't seem to be very much in force; it's not going to be blanket-applied to those 400,000 articles, as far as I can tell. There's also a *second* system going in, applied to all pages - patrolled revisions - which is essentially a passive monitoring mechanism and won't in any way affect what version readers see. I'll concentrate only on flagged protection here, since it seems to be the contentious one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patrolled_revisions 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? Users in the reviewer usergroup, which will initially be all admins but can be given out to others; there'll no doubt be a process for this. I believe if you can flag you can flag your own edits - it may be that they're done automatically, I'm not clear on this. 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? Don't know, but a testing version is being set up. http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 4) Is there any automatic flagging? See #2; not sure. 5) Are you supposed to check an entire article prior to flagging it? The idea is you check everything since the last reviewed edit; ie, check since last known good version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_guideline For fully protected pages, changes should only be approved if there's consensus for them, or if it's trivial; for semi-protected pages, just so long as the edit's not crap. How confident are you meant to be? How confident are you about rolling back edits today? ;-) 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? This, I don't know. Protected articles usually have someone who's protected them; it could be we'll find that if you protect an article, there's an assumption it's your job to make sure there's no flagging backlog - a name and shame policy. ;-) Alternatively, if this gets incorporated into one of the automatic editing tools - which it probably will, in time - we'll no doubt be able to tap into the broad pool of automated-editing vandal fighters etc. I suspect it'll backlog early and then improve over time, since once 'reviewer' is spread broadly enough - say, to a couple of times the current admin pool, four thousand of our current ten or fifteen thousand active users - then most flag-protected articles will be edited regularly by them in the normal run of things, too. If *anyone* with reviewer rights is currently working with an article, chances are it'll get frequently reviewed - because they want their edits to show up as much as anyone. 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing articles when they don't have any instant gratification? The cynic in me says they won't realise they don't get instant gratification until after they've edited it ;-). More practically, flagged protection will cover a few thousand pages - at worst, we're still talking less than one percent of pages. Many contributors won't encounter a flag-protected page from one month to the next. I think it'll annoy some people a bit, and it'll *really* annoy some people who want to be really annoyed about it, but after two months people'll assume this is the way protection has always been. 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) or non-flagged version? I am not sure, but they'll be trivially able to switch between them - have a look at a dewiki page, with its little button in the top right - and they'll always *edit* the most recent (non-flagged) version. 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? So I am informed, but they have to go looking for them - it's like old history versions now. 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? Answer hazy, ask again later. I suspect in the long run it won't do much difference, but it'll be *blamed* (or credited) for any enormous turnarounds; someone I was talking to was swearing blind it destroyed dewiki, caused a catastrophic collapse in the number of IP editors, but on examining the statistics that actually happened six months earlier! If any of this is wrong, please let me know; I've tried to double-check my details, but I'm not 100% confident I've interpreted it all accurately. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked edit this page? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying you are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving. Oooh, this is an *interesting* problem, especially with section editing. Auto-flagging of own revisions seems to be something you can turn on or off, at least for the two semi-protected states: REVIEWERS: Can edit; a new edit is visible immediately if the previous version is already confirmed or when the option confirm this revision is selected; otherwise left unconfirmed I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked edit this page? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying you are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving. Oooh, this is an *interesting* problem, especially with section editing. Auto-flagging of own revisions seems to be something you can turn on or off, at least for the two semi-protected states: Surely de-wiki would have encountered and solved it if it was a problem? REVIEWERS: Can edit; a new edit is visible immediately if the previous version is already confirmed or when the option confirm this revision is selected; otherwise left unconfirmed I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm. Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm. Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did. My understanding is that the two systems are just different enough it's hard to meaningfully compare, but my ability to confirm this is limited by not speaking German ;-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia article in Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082603606.html?hpid=sec-tech -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com While some pages are robust and balanced, he added, there are other pages that leave a lot to be desired, to put it bluntly. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
Good questions. Here's my personal view:
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
The press story (particularly in Britain) seems to be along the lines of:
Wikipedia, founded on open editing has been forced to restrict editing as
their model has failed
This is exaggerated, grossly misleading and unduly negative but probably has a
grain of truth at the centre. Bit like press reporting in general then :)
Here's what I've been saying in response:
- Wikipedia has been a phenomenal success - 4th most visited website, number 1
source for knowledge online, 3m articles, close to 5m images on Wikimedia
Commons, partnerships with museums, art galleries, libraries, governments
around the world
- This success is partly down to the early adoption of this principle of
openness - the idea that anyone can edit. We have no intention of abandoning
this principle
- However, with success comes responsibility, particularly when you have
articles on living people and misinformation in those articles with the
potential to cause harm.
- Flagged revisions is a new tool that helps us manage this risk of harm. It
allows people to edit but doesn't show that edit to the world until it has
passed review.
- Patrolled revisions allows users to choose whether to read the latest version
of an article or the latest reviewed edit
- Some people have been saying that flagged revisions will make Wikipedia more
open where previously protected or semi-protected pages are changed to flagged
revisions. As I've said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with the argument
because although it will probably be true in some cases, the net effect will be
outweighed by the articles that are currently unprotected moving to flagged.
Hence Wikipedia as a whole will become less open.
- The German Wikipedia has run flagged revisions for a year now, and they're
still alive and kicking
- This is, of course, a trial, and many of the details have yet to be decided
which will be done by community discussion. The New York Times sniffed out a
story from a relatively minor technical announcement, which has then spread
around the media.
- Generally if you've been following developments on wiki and you read
something in the press which is different from your understanding of flagged
revisions, your understanding is probably correct. Remember - you're the expert
compared to them!
1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the
community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future, or
indeed have it more restricted. The German Wikipedia applies in to every page.
2) Who gets to flag a revision?
Members of the user group Reviewer. All Admins will automatically be given
reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
[[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
threshold of number of edits and time since account was opened. An initial poll
rejected the idea of autopromotion, but I notice this issue has been reopened
because only 50 people participated in that discussion.
See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Can you flag your own revisions?
I think at the moment the idea was yes.
3) What's the interface like? How many clicks?
Don't know. The Trial will clarify a lot of these things so we can see it
working in practice.
4) Is there any automatic flagging?
I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be
automatically flagged.
5) Are you supposed to check an entire article prior to flagging it?
No - I understand it's just the edit(s) since it was last flagged.
How confident are you meant to be?
There's a working draft at [[Wikipedia:Reviewing guideline]] which says you
can pass an edit if it doesn't contain any vandalism, patent nonsense,
copyvios, legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Basically, this is a high
level review, not intended to go into the details that you might get on a talk
page.
6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles?
The encouragement will be for people who support the whole idea and want to
give it the commitment to make it work. It's a bit like asking what makes
admins respond to an {{editrequested}} tag on a protected article.
7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing articles when
they don't have any instant gratification?
Their edits will still contribute, there will just be a delay in seeing it.
There is, however, a big risk that people will be discouraged from editing. It
will certainly discourage edits that don't pass review!
8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged)
or non-flagged version?
Under flagged protection anonymous readers see the last flagged edit and
registered readers see the last edit even if it hasn't been flagged.
Under patrolled revisions
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: snip 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future, or indeed have it more restricted. The German Wikipedia applies in to every page. Will it apply to talk page or other pages outside of articles if it was rolled out further? Does de-wiki have it apply to all pages in all namespaces? 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Members of the user group Reviewer. All Admins will automatically be given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at [[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed threshold of number of edits and time since account was opened. An initial poll rejected the idea of autopromotion, but I notice this issue has been reopened because only 50 people participated in that discussion. To be fair, as more people become aware of this, there will be more calls for bigger and longer discussions. That is only natural. Rather then risks continual re-discussion, it should be made clear that everyone will get the chance to say something at the end of the trial. And if they don't, well, that will cause huge upset. I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be automatically flagged. This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course, once you have the flagged 'protection' in place, reviewers will be able to prevent removal of the category. But that is something to watch for. There's a working draft at [[Wikipedia:Reviewing guideline]] which says you can pass an edit if it doesn't contain any vandalism, patent nonsense, copyvios, legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Basically, this is a high level review, not intended to go into the details that you might get on a talk page. Some of those items are difficult to sort out when only taking a brief look at the edit or article. Copyvios in particular can be hard to detect - I hope people are lenient on reviewers who let things slip through. In BLPs, copyvios can sometimes be the subject trying to upload something they have written previously (and not really intending to GFDL what they wrote). Wikipedia needs to continue recruiting new contributors in order to keep its current success. This has already been identified as a problem and flagged revisions may make this worse. We need to address this risk. Both recruiting and *keeping* new contributors (i.e. welcoming them and helping them learn how to edit Wikipedia). Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute protection will still be needed. Will this still be available? Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote: So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story? For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the future some time. What's the policy going to be? You get different answers depending on who you ask. This is because people tend to tell you how they want it to be rather than what the community actually approved. Even Jimbo and the foundation staff have been guilty of this. What is being implemented has two parts, flagged protection and patrolled revisions. The important part is flagged protection. It is a new kind of protection besides full and semi. When an article is flagged-protected readers will not see a new version until it has been flagged. 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No, only on pages that are flagged-protected individually. I expect there will be a push to flagged-protect all BLPs (biographies of living people) but nothing is decided yet. I would personally support that if there are enough reviewers to keep the backlog short. 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? This is very much undecided. Some think becoming a reviewer should be like autoconfirmation, some think like rollback, while a few think it should be harder to get than adminship. Hopefully it will be adjusted depending on how many reviewers are needed. 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? I don't know yet. There is a test implementation at http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org 4) Is there any automatic flagging? There are actually three levels of flagged protection. In semi flagged protection edits by autoconfirmed users are automatically flagged. In intermediary flagged protection (probably the most common case) only edits by reviewers are automatically flagged. In full flagged protection only administrators (not reviewers) can flag. 5) Are you supposed to check an entire article prior to flagging it? How confident are you meant to be? The reviewer is only meant to check the diff from the previous flagged version. It should be checked for: * conflict with the Biographies of Living People policy * vandalism or patent nonsense * copyright violations * legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Reviewers are not required to check for neutrality, original research, sources, etc. Of course, obvious cases are better reverted right away than flagged. I expect there will be some conflict over this. In my opinion it is very important that we keep the flow of Bold, Revert, Discuss. Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? Who knows? We'll see. 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing articles when they don't have any instant gratification? Good question. Perhaps that an edit will eventually go live unless it's really bad. 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) or non-flagged version? I think flagged, but you can change it in your preferences. 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? I am quite sure yes. 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? Surely not. The potential problems depend on how quickly edits get flagged and how strict reviewers are. If it takes weeks before anyone even looks at an edit and reviewers refuse to flag anything they don't actively like, then we are no more open than Britannica. After all, I can email a suggested change to them and probably get a reply. Our advantages are: * You can edit right in the code rather than describe your change in an email * Edits don't just get lost in someones inbox. Eventually an edit is either approved or reverted. * Speed, if we manage * A more open attitude, I wish Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars keep editing. 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? Hopefully. Especially for BLPs I think this has a lot of potential. Currently a damaging edit can last way too long in articles about obscure but notable people. So far I ignored the second part: patrolled revisions. This is enabled on all articles, but readers see the latest version whether flagged or not. It is used to know whether an edit has been checked or not, so the time of recent changes patrollers can be used more efficiently. Whether it will actually be used
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: snip This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course, once you have the flagged 'protection' in place, reviewers will be able to prevent removal of the category. But that is something to watch for. Filter 117, I think, from several months ago. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute protection will still be needed. Will this still be available? I haven't seen anything clearly stating this, but I believe so. Full-flagged protection allows anyone to edit, but only admins (*not* reviewers) to approve; I would assume conventional complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as the main page. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: 4) Is there any automatic flagging? I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be automatically flagged. No, no. Flagged protection will be applied to - well, articles we choose to apply it to, in the same way as (semi-)protection is now. The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. Patrolled revisions, on the other hand, seems to be all (mainspace) pages, but will function mainly as a back-end tool and won't affect what people see or people's ability to edit. The idea is we can use it for BLPs, which are the main focus of our problem, but it'll be enabled everywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions#Patrolled_revisions -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk: Full-flagged protection allows anyone to edit, but only admins (*not* reviewers) to approve; I would assume conventional complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as the main page. Jimbo has said he'd love to have flagged revisions applied to the main page specifically so it can be edited by anyone. The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any page at all can be open to improvement by anyone. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
stop edit wars.
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any page at all can be open to improvement by anyone. Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of Well, it isn't *really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being constructive here.? I envision a future where semi and full protection is more anti-edit war, forcing people to use the talk page, and flagged protection is more anti-vandalism. Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:36 AM, David Gerard wrote: 2009/8/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk: Full-flagged protection allows anyone to edit, but only admins (*not* reviewers) to approve; I would assume conventional complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as the main page. Jimbo has said he'd love to have flagged revisions applied to the main page specifically so it can be edited by anyone. The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any page at all can be open to improvement by anyone. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Members of the user group Reviewer. All Admins will automatically be given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at [[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed threshold of number of edits and time since account was opened. An initial poll rejected the idea of autopromotion, but I notice this issue has been reopened because only 50 people participated in that discussion. To be fair, as more people become aware of this, there will be more calls for bigger and longer discussions. That is only natural. Rather then risks continual re-discussion, it should be made clear that everyone will get the chance to say something at the end of the trial. And if they don't, well, that will cause huge upset. The poll was only ever meant to apply to the trial, with the issue open for rethink after the trial was over. I hope that still happens. I think that's really the usefulness of the trial - a lot of people are concerned because they are unsure of how exactly it will work - once we see it working in practice, people are likely may well make up their minds differently. Andrew ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that? If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is resurrected - I'm sure there'll be people out there who'll want to argue for it! Andrew ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that? Inference ;-) Thus, it is proposed to enable patrolled revisions, which uses a passive flag that reviewers can use to mark a revision patrolled, for monitoring purposes, but that has no effect on the version viewed by readers. This passive flag is available for all articles. Flagged protection is a proposal to allow administrators to enable an active flag on a given article, 'flag protecting' it. Reviewers can flag revisions, and the version viewed by readers by default on (semi) flagged protected pages is the latest confirmed revision. During the trial, semi flagged protection is intended to be used with the same requirements as for semi-protection, and full flagged protection (see below), with the same requirements as for full-protection In short: Patrolled revisions goes on all articles; flagged protection goes on a case-by-case basis pretty much as (semi-) protection does today. There's no BLP-article specific rollout in the current plan. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that? I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions BLPs at all, other than BLP being one of the policies that needs to be checked by reviewers. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
As I thought the poll was, we were approving a trial limited in all respects to BLP only. We were also discussing a trial on one thing, not a simultaneous trial of several different proposals. in trying to see how a complicated new routine works, we should be testing either flagged revision or patrolled articles first. And if we are going to test flagged revisions,we should be testing one particular way of doing it, not three different levels at the same time. That is, assuming I correctly understand the page Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions which is very likely to be an incorrect assumption. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that? I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions BLPs at all, other than BLP being one of the policies that needs to be checked by reviewers. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
I don't equate second hand witness to secondary source. A primary source is the first source we have that describes a certain event. Matilda was baptised in the Church of St Mary last Easter is a primary source if the author isn't merely parroting some other known source. The author doesn't need to be an eye-witness and in fact can be parroting some earlier now-lost source and *still* be a primary source. Do you agree with that last statement? The first source we know about, that we still have, is a primary source, no matter how the information came to the writer. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Yes, chronicles are accepted as primary sources, because there is nothing further back from them--they serve essentially the same function as newspapers. Obviously, they have to be used with a good deal of interpretation,just as newspapers. I don't believe everything in a newspaper happened just as they describe it either. However, the ASC, as many other chronicles, also serve as secondary sources, commenting on the events they describe: for example, the famous analysis of K. William I at 1087 is a secondary evaluation, more of less like a modern editorial in a newspaper, which is a secondary source, David Goodman, Ph.D, M .L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:24 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source. And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project. I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Some are, some aren't. Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe that every event there described is being described by an eye-witness? No. In fact it's possibly doubtful whether any of it is eye-witness testimony. Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary or secondary. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources20in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made 0Ato exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. =0 A Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com There is a perennial media narrative that unmediated content production cannot possibly work, as it goes against everything media people understand. They have run pretty much THE SAME story about Wikipedia every year since it was created. This narrative is so strong that no mere facts or objective reality can kill it. I expect to see it next year and the year after too, and the year after that. That perennial media narrative is a meme you're fighting. You need to come up and use a countermeme that will chase it down and kill it- the meme has to spread faster than that idea, so that every time somebody says that, some bright spark kills them dead with the mildly amusing/apropro reply and do your work for you. One counter meme I've seen (that you're probably all familiar with) is: That's the THEORY, that unmediated content CANNOT work, but the wikipedia works only in PRACTICE, but not in theory!!! There's probably other, better memes you can use. - d. -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time. Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday. On monday, what would be the point of edit warring? You know your edit isn't going to survive until sunday, so no one will see it... (Assuming edit warrers are logical...) Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote. Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise. In short, a !vote is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid calling them polls. !Polls? The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting (counting !votes is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend that a !vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to reach consensus by discussion. I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy. It's 2009. Why is this happening? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: That perennial media narrative is a meme you're fighting. I think part of it is that it's much simpler than the rather subtle truth. Meme: Wikipedia had the goal of complete openness and anarchy, but it failed and they came crawling back to more traditional methods. Subtle truth: Wikipedia used complete openness and anarchy as an effective tool to jumpstart the creation of an encyclopaedia and to build a community around it. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail (England) on Flagged Revisions
The Daily Mail is hardly local. Sadly. It's a crappy paper. all the same. On 8/26/09, Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/26 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: They hope the switch to volunteer editors will curb malicious tampering and reduce the risk of lawsuits We're all volunteers anyway aren't we on Wikipedia? Nothing has changed there?! -- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell...@gmail.com [[User:Isabell121]] on all public Wikimedia projects. Freenode Community Co-Ordinator - issyl0 on irc.freenode.net PGP Key ID: 0xB6CA6840 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy. I tend to avoid [[WP:AN]]--I don't need moar dramah--but if this is true, then it shouldn't be happening. Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote. Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise. In short, a !vote is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid calling them polls. !Polls? The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting (counting !votes is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend that a !vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to reach consensus by discussion. I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy. It's 2009. Why is this happening? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Future templates compared to spoiler templates
The future template was deleted, oh, in 2007 of something. I'll try to find that link to that discussion. Any attempt to recreate this excrescence can safely be speedied. On 8/26/09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: There has been a centralised discussion on deprecating future templates. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Deprecating_%22Future%22_templates The templates were compared to the spoiler templates. Not to drag all that up again, but I found the comparison interesting. The same basic point seemed to be made there, though, that such templates patronised our readers, who can be expected to realise that the article they are reading is about a future event (and if they can't, then that is more likely to be due to bad writing in the article, than the reader's comprehension skills). Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com: It's 2009. Why is this happening? Because voting is the only practical way of a large number of people making a decision. The policies date back to when we were a small project and could actually discuss things and reach a consensus, that just isn't the case any more for anything but the smallest of issues (like content disputes on individual articles, they still work by consensus sometimes). In order to make reality fit policy we add a !. It's a kind of legal fiction, I suppose. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com wrote: Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote. Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise. Seems to me the !vote is a way of recognising the fact that the process is very much like a poll, without actually submitting to it. If you vote and lose, you have to accept the outcome. If you !vote and lose, you are entitled to demand a determination of consensus. Part of me thinks the !vote thing is retarded, but part of me sees some sense in it. It's not a real vote, but it's not genuine consensus building either. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote. Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise. In short, a !vote is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid calling them polls. !Polls? The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting (counting !votes is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend that a !vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to reach consensus by discussion. I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy. It's 2009. Why is this happening? Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments. -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
stop edit wars.
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit
protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people
discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full
regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used
templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote: Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments. If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting or !voting is the way to go. You can't build consensus by polling or !polling. You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Future templates compared to spoiler templates
That sounds strange. From the discussion I read, these templates had been around a while and spreading. Were they actually recreations that no-one noticed? Probably best to go to the on-wiki discussions at this point. Carcharoth On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com wrote: The future template was deleted, oh, in 2007 of something. I'll try to find that link to that discussion. Any attempt to recreate this excrescence can safely be speedied. On 8/26/09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: There has been a centralised discussion on deprecating future templates. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Deprecating_%22Future%22_templates The templates were compared to the spoiler templates. Not to drag all that up again, but I found the comparison interesting. The same basic point seemed to be made there, though, that such templates patronised our readers, who can be expected to realise that the article they are reading is about a future event (and if they can't, then that is more likely to be due to bad writing in the article, than the reader's comprehension skills). Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
2009/8/28 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Sure, but that's not what the phrase is actually used to mean. What does it mean then? In the context of RFA? It means a vote with a required supermajority of 75% with some obviously invalid votes discounted and on very rare occasions (getting rarer each year) exceptional circumstances are factored in. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
