Re: [WikiEN-l] Problem with the pending changes review screen.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Once a revision is no longer current, then whether it was accepted, reverted, unchecked or the like in the past is immaterial. This is not quite true. If a revision is marked as reviewed, and a reviewer later reverts the article back to that revision, the revert will automatically be marked as reviewed. For this reason, it's important not to mark any revision with vandalism as 'reviewed', even if you immediately fix the vandalism afterwards. I made an example of this at [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/CBM]]. I used an alternate account CBM2 to make bad edits, and used my admin account CBM to review them and remove the bad ones. I intentionally made a mistake at timestamp 3:06 by accepting a revision with vandalism and then undoing the vandalism separately. But later, I looked at this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APending_changes%2FTesting%2FCBMaction=historysubmitdiff=368307529oldid=368306510 and clicked undo because it looked safe. Looking at that diff, wouldn't you do the same thing? Because the vandalism was present in both of the versions being compared, the diff didn't show it. But because the original revision was marked as reviewed, the new version was also marked as reviewed. The moral is you should try not to accept edits with vandalism in them, under the assumption that any version you review might later become the live version. - Carl ___ 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] Problem with the pending changes review screen.
Updated at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pending_changes#How_it_affects_past_revisions_and_page_history FT2 On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Once a revision is no longer current, then whether it was accepted, reverted, unchecked or the like in the past is immaterial. This is not quite true. If a revision is marked as reviewed, and a reviewer later reverts the article back to that revision, the revert will automatically be marked as reviewed. For this reason, it's important not to mark any revision with vandalism as 'reviewed', even if you immediately fix the vandalism afterwards. I made an example of this at [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/CBM]]. I used an alternate account CBM2 to make bad edits, and used my admin account CBM to review them and remove the bad ones. I intentionally made a mistake at timestamp 3:06 by accepting a revision with vandalism and then undoing the vandalism separately. But later, I looked at this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APending_changes%2FTesting%2FCBMaction=historysubmitdiff=368307529oldid=368306510 and clicked undo because it looked safe. Looking at that diff, wouldn't you do the same thing? Because the vandalism was present in both of the versions being compared, the diff didn't show it. But because the original revision was marked as reviewed, the new version was also marked as reviewed. The moral is you should try not to accept edits with vandalism in them, under the assumption that any version you review might later become the live version. - Carl ___ 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] Pending Changes launched on English Wikipedia
For those who want to get a sense of how the system is performing in terms of throughput (e.g., average time-to-approval), please visit the Pending Changes Stats page [7]. The stats page doesn't show the percentiles, like the one of labs does. Is that just because there haven't been enough edits needing approval for there to be meaningful percentiles, or has it been removed for some reason? I think those percentiles are one of the most interesting statistics for determining how well we are doing at keeping up. Also, the average, median and lag are all showing as 0.0s. That can't be right, surely? Is that a bug? Or is it including the automatically approved edits? If so, that should probably be changed to just consider manual edits, otherwise we'll get pretty meaningless numbers (as long as more than half of edits are automatically approved, the median will be 0.0s). ___ 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] Pending Changes launched on English Wikipedia
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: For those who want to get a sense of how the system is performing in terms of throughput (e.g., average time-to-approval), please visit the Pending Changes Stats page [7]. the average, median and lag are all showing as 0.0s. That can't be right, surely? Is that a bug? Yeah, something there doesn't look right. We'll look into it further. Rob ___ 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] Pending Changes launched on English Wikipedia
On 16 June 2010 18:59, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: For those who want to get a sense of how the system is performing in terms of throughput (e.g., average time-to-approval), please visit the Pending Changes Stats page [7]. the average, median and lag are all showing as 0.0s. That can't be right, surely? Is that a bug? Yeah, something there doesn't look right. We'll look into it further. Thanks! ___ 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] Pending Changes: first press
One observation on persistently heavily vandalized articles. It's worth to try pending changes on them. It may, and probably will, reduce to some extent the level of vandalism. If, however, the level of vandalism remains so high that it's counter-productive, i.e. wastes community resources for no sensible benefit of good edits, then we should use semi-protection. But we shouldn't think that it can't work and not try. On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Well, part of the objective here is to see whether we get enough encyclopedia-worthy edits to determine if it is worthwhile removing protection. [snip] I couldn't disagree more strongly. If we were making a judgement on the basis of count of good edits to vandalism edits we would conclude that the best solution would be to protect everything— with the paradoxical effect of Wikipedia not existing at all. The reality is that the goodness of a good edit is so good relative to the baddness of a bad edit, mostly because of the tools and resources that we have to deal with bad edits, that we can pretty much disregard the vandalism side of that particular equation entirely. Undo/rollback are easy buttons, and we have many contributors who do nothing but remove obviously bad stuff (and some who, honestly, aren't qualified to do much else!). Without this truth Wikipedia simply couldn't work. The notion that the basic workload of dealing with simple vandalism (as opposed, say, the timeliness of the corrections or the quality of the articles in the interim) is a significant problem is unsupported by any objective measurement which I've seen, I'd love to see pointers suggesting otherwise. I've always believed that we use protection as a short term measure to preserve the quality of the articles displayed to readers (who are indifferent to our internal process) and the protection policy on Enwp is quite explicit that the purpose of protection is not pre-emptive ([[WP:NO-PREEMPT]]). I think it's characteristic of an 'administrative bias' to assume that protection is intended to be a workload reducer, if you're constantly dealing with the problem cases you're going to overestimate their magnitude. This concern also neglects the reduction in the incentive to vandalize that pending revisions ought to create. Whatever portion of the incentive to make trouble is related to the high visibility of the trouble should be reduced. Of course, we now have many troublemakers who don't care about visibility at all— they make trouble purely to irritate Wikipedians. But these WillyOnWheels class trouble makers are perfectly happy to make their trouble on less prominent pages which have never enjoyed persistent protection, since even obscure pages are fine for the purpose of irritating Wikipedians. ___ 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] Pending Changes: first press
IRC the evidence from the German trial was that it didn't reduce vandalism attempts much. Basically, unless it was something specific about the German trial, it looks like your average vandal is too unsophisticated to understand that their edits won't go live, or something. Still, we live in hopes. On the upside, it does at least mean that the attempts won't go live, and there's not much hurry to undo them. On 17/06/2010, Cenarium sysop cenarium.sy...@gmail.com wrote: One observation on persistently heavily vandalized articles. It's worth to try pending changes on them. It may, and probably will, reduce to some extent the level of vandalism. If, however, the level of vandalism remains so high that it's counter-productive, i.e. wastes community resources for no sensible benefit of good edits, then we should use semi-protection. But we shouldn't think that it can't work and not try. On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Well, part of the objective here is to see whether we get enough encyclopedia-worthy edits to determine if it is worthwhile removing protection. [snip] I couldn't disagree more strongly. If we were making a judgement on the basis of count of good edits to vandalism edits we would conclude that the best solution would be to protect everything— with the paradoxical effect of Wikipedia not existing at all. The reality is that the goodness of a good edit is so good relative to the baddness of a bad edit, mostly because of the tools and resources that we have to deal with bad edits, that we can pretty much disregard the vandalism side of that particular equation entirely. Undo/rollback are easy buttons, and we have many contributors who do nothing but remove obviously bad stuff (and some who, honestly, aren't qualified to do much else!). Without this truth Wikipedia simply couldn't work. The notion that the basic workload of dealing with simple vandalism (as opposed, say, the timeliness of the corrections or the quality of the articles in the interim) is a significant problem is unsupported by any objective measurement which I've seen, I'd love to see pointers suggesting otherwise. I've always believed that we use protection as a short term measure to preserve the quality of the articles displayed to readers (who are indifferent to our internal process) and the protection policy on Enwp is quite explicit that the purpose of protection is not pre-emptive ([[WP:NO-PREEMPT]]). I think it's characteristic of an 'administrative bias' to assume that protection is intended to be a workload reducer, if you're constantly dealing with the problem cases you're going to overestimate their magnitude. This concern also neglects the reduction in the incentive to vandalize that pending revisions ought to create. Whatever portion of the incentive to make trouble is related to the high visibility of the trouble should be reduced. Of course, we now have many troublemakers who don't care about visibility at all— they make trouble purely to irritate Wikipedians. But these WillyOnWheels class trouble makers are perfectly happy to make their trouble on less prominent pages which have never enjoyed persistent protection, since even obscure pages are fine for the purpose of irritating Wikipedians. ___ 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 -- -Ian Woollard ___ 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] Feature Article Prizes - British Museum
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Dear en.wiki-l, As some of you may have seen in this week's Wikipedia Signpost[1] or on the Wikimedia UK Blog[2] the British Museum is offering five prizes of £100 (≈$140USD/€120) at their shop/bookshop[3] for new Featured Articles on topics related to the British Museum *in any Wikipedia language edition*. Ideally, the topics will be articles about collection items. Your choice. A good place to start looking is Category: Collection of the British Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collection_of_the_British_Museum The rules say: * In the event that multiple users claim a prize for the same article, they will need to agree among themselves how to allocate the prize. Given that an FA involves many contributors, we can expect that each successful FA will have many people who deserve a cut. This should be interesting to watch. ;-) Any chance the British Museum will donate a high-resolution image when the article becomes a GA? -- John Vandenberg ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
