Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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, semi-protection, but that seems a bit crude.) You say crude, I say simple. If there are articles there needing full protection, nature will take its course, and they will end there in due time. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that, unless the community clearly requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off. Assuming that the trial starts on time, it will also end on time. Thank you, William; although I believed this was the intention, it is important to see it in black and white. I have lost count of the number of times someone has told the community oh, let's just try this, if we don't like it we can go back to the other way, without any realistic intention to consider turning something off/reverting a policy/reinstating a practice. I look forward to seeing what all we've learned in the coming two months. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 documentation, as this is stated very clearly in the tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes. *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 needed, and only where needed, more than classic protection would have ever allowed on its own. The protection policy allows for a considerable amount of discretion, and it is evident that administrators in general would be more willing to apply pending changes protection on articles subject to vandalism or BLP violations than they would otherwise have been with the rigid semi-protection. As long as we can keep up with the backlog, this is a win-win situation. *Pending changes will encourage more non-editors to try to edit, and these new editors will become part of our community. Yes, and no. We may not gain considerably more editors, because it would concern a small number of articles, but every edit makes an editor, even if one-time. No to the second part, because every editor *is* a member of the community. The community is not only the most active editors. And yes, there are people trying to edit semi-protected pages, and in a constructive way. Since we modified the Protectedpagetexthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Protectedpagetextto make submitting edit requests more accessible, we've received many more, the vast majority of those are in good-faith, so there are definitely people out there trying to edit. *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 subject to disputes. *Anonymous editors will now be able to edit the [[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] articles. No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the trial policy (scope section), that pages subject to too high levels of vandalism should not be protected with pending changes but classic protection. Cenarium On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:12 AM, 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 requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that, unless the community clearly requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off. Assuming that the trial starts on time, it will also end on time. I'll note that both the start and the end of the trial are mainly up to the community. People have to agree to start using it, and which articles to start with. 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, semi-protection, but that seems a bit crude.) So I think the real question isn't the WMF's intention; it's the community's intention. As it should be. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 needed, and only where needed, more than classic protection would have ever allowed on its own. The protection policy allows for a considerable amount of discretion, and it is evident that administrators in general would be more willing to apply pending changes protection on articles subject to vandalism or BLP violations than they would otherwise have been with the rigid semi-protection. As long as we can keep up with the backlog, this is a win-win situation. This is a very dangerous view on the issue. This is what people who strenously opposed the new mechanism were most afraid of, and the supporters originally said would not be a danger. If this really happened, I could easily see many of the people originally in support of the new mechanism, could do a full volte-face and come strongly in opposition of the mechanism. Supporters of the original agreement often voiced the proviso that using the mechanism for semied/BLP's or whatever their personal threshold was, would never ever be a thin end of the wedge to spread things out to things we wouldn't semi currently. That is the *old* *agreement* on this issue. A huge drive by any tiny group of blow-hard editors to expand use of the mechanism beyond what we currently semi, could back-fire spectacularly. I don't dispute that in the fullness of time; years or decades from now, it might eventually go that route, but that is a completely different issue, and I suspect there would be many more important community supported initiatives that would have to be accepted in the interim, before that could remotely be acceptable. *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 subject to disputes. I agree with your point here. The mechanism shouldn't be used as a damper in edit wars. That way, madness lies. You could have hundreds of reverts back and forth never going live, and a Stygian Stable for the person sorting out through all that which revisions and edits to go live finally. Just a total Charlie Foxtrot in other words. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 and FUD on enwiki, or tested the configuration yourself, or read the documentation, as this is stated very clearly in the tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes. Actually, it was impossible to try on the testwiki at the time, because the reviewer permission hadn't been activated yet. And the tables clearly state that the edit must be accepted. There was no indication at the time in the documentation that any other option was possible or acceptable, and no way to test it at the reviewer level. *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 needed, and only where needed, more than classic protection would have ever allowed on its own. The protection policy allows for a considerable amount of discretion, and it is evident that administrators in general would be more willing to apply pending changes protection on articles subject to vandalism or BLP violations than they would otherwise have been with the rigid semi-protection. As long as we can keep up with the backlog, this is a win-win situation. 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 that meet the *current* criteria for page protection; what you're suggesting here is something completely unrelated to the trial of pending changes in and of itself. *Pending changes will encourage more non-editors to try to edit, and these new editors will become part of our community. Yes, and no. We may not gain considerably more editors, because it would concern a small number of articles, but every edit makes an editor, even if one-time. No to the second part, because every editor *is* a member of the community. The community is not only the most active editors. And yes, there are people trying to edit semi-protected pages, and in a constructive way. Since we modified the Protectedpagetexthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to make submitting edit requests more accessible, we've received many more, the vast majority of those are in good-faith, so there are definitely people out there trying to edit. Those who are making good faith edits (or requesting them) *might* be members of the community, but I'm not particularly inclined to include the drive-by vandals as such. *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 subject to disputes. Remember, my list was made up of things that various people have proposed as good reasons to institute pending changes. I completely agree with you that it was never intended, but some people still think it was. I removed it from the draft policy, in fact; I have no idea who added it in. *Anonymous editors will now be able to edit the [[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] articles. No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the trial policy (scope section), that pages subject to too high levels of vandalism should not be protected with pending changes but classic protection. Yes, indeed. Another place where we agree! Unfortunately, the very first press publication about this change specifically suggested that the [[George W. Bush]] article would become accessible to unregistered and newly registered editors. I'm not the enemy here. I have something of a well-earned reputation as a BLP absolutist and I spend a good part of every week addressing the fallout of vandalism. But I've been around this project too long, and seen too many exceedingly buggy software deployments and major attempts to hijack policy and practice. I can turn a blind eye to a fair number of these, if they don't affect matters within my usual area of assumed responsibility. This one, however, is openly being billed as one thing (improved editing accessibilty for non-registered and newly registered users on articles they've previously been shut out of), but it's pretty obvious that there is a significant desire to use this tool to do exactly the opposite, and actually restrict automatically visible edits from non-registered and newly registered users on a much larger swath of articles. Keep the trial limited to
Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 else. (Unless they'd like us just to switch them en masse to, say, semi-protection, but that seems a bit crude.) You say crude, I say simple. If there are articles there needing full protection, nature will take its course, and they will end there in due time. Just as a minor technical note: a maintenance script exists to turn all articles protected with Pending Changes into normal semi-protections. So if we do reach that juncture and that is what the community wants to do, it would be a trivial action. -Chad ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 performance concerns that inspired it — otherwise we probably could expect some trigger happy person to mass convert all (semi-)protected pages before we've had a chance to work the kinks out of the software... ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 subject to disputes. I agree with your point here. The mechanism shouldn't be used as a damper in edit wars. That way, madness lies. You could have hundreds of reverts back and forth never going live, and a Stygian Stable for the person sorting out through all that which revisions and edits to go live finally. Just a total Charlie Foxtrot in other words. Nah. It's not usually going to be anything like that bad, and worse case you can always revert the whole lot and make the editors do them again. I've done that before with articles. It's also useful because in those situations people can do 'what if I do this?' kind of edits, and people can go 'don't like that' and revert it back, or make further edits/suggestions without the concerns of messing up the users view of the article. It can act to *defuse* arguments. So I think that's over-restricting things. And that's the problem. People think they know what this feature is, and what it's for, but it's only when the community plays with it, that we'll really know. So it's a big concern that there's lots of weird and unnecessary restrictions on what is only a small test. I mean, what's the worse that can happen? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen -- -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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 that meet the *current* criteria for page protection; what you're suggesting here is something completely unrelated to the trial of pending changes in and of itself. You know well that there are no objective way to say if an article meets the 'criteria' or not. If you ask different admins about a particular situation, some will say no protection is warranted, some will say temporary semi-protection is, of variable length, and some say that indefinite semi-protection is. The protection policy says 'heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy' for indefinite, and 'Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption' for temporary, this allows for considerable discretion. And since pending changes protection is much less restrictive than semi-protection, admins will naturally lower their personal threshold for applying it. There are several admins who apply a threshold considerably lower than average, their semi-protections are often contested but almost always uphold, or with no admin going ahead to remove them. When several admins started to make use of ' liberal semi' for BLPs, there has been considerable objection (by me among others) but almost all protections stayed. There we see the two contradictory needs, to better protect articles, BLPs in particular, versus to keep articles editable. Excessive protection (of any kind) is bad; but BLPs subject to vandalism or BLP violations to a level where semi-protection would be within discretion, but just below the threshold where most admins would protect, is not satisfactory. By its flexibility, pending changes allows to better balance those two contradictory needs. A great advantage of pending changes protection is that we can see edits, so determine to a certain extent if protection is still warranted. With semi-protection we can only guess. So we'll be in better measure to remove pending changes protection were no longer needed. This means we'll simultaneously be able to handle more cases for protection, and remove protection where no longer needed. The total of protection may not even grow sensibly at all, but protection would be better distributed. We just need to keep an eye on the backlog and adjust if necessary. In the trial we may not readily see this happening, because it would be more limited and controlled, but I'm sure it will occur to a certain extent. This won't handle all issues, especially isolated vandalism and BLP violations, where protection cannot be used per policy, which is why we vitally need better monitoring tools, like patrolled revisions. I would strongly oppose any attempt to no longer regard the protection policy for using pending changes, or alter the protection policy to extend its scope. For discussion of methods, see Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Trial. This is a very dangerous view on the issue. This is what people who strenously opposed the new mechanism were most afraid of, and the supporters originally said would not be a danger. If this really happened, I could easily see many of the people originally in support of the new mechanism, could do a full volte-face and come strongly in opposition of the mechanism. Supporters of the original agreement often voiced the proviso that using the mechanism for semied/BLP's or whatever their personal threshold was, would never ever be a thin end of the wedge to spread things out to things we wouldn't semi currently. That is the *old* *agreement* on this issue. A huge drive by any tiny group of blow-hard editors to expand use of the mechanism beyond what we currently semi, could back-fire spectacularly. I don't dispute that in the fullness of time; years or decades from now, it might eventually go that route, but that is a completely different issue, and I suspect there would be many more important community supported initiatives that would have to be accepted in the interim, before that could remotely be acceptable. People were mostly afraid to see this becoming a FlaggedRevs implementation similar or close to that on de.wikipedia, which is very different from what I imagine. The idea of Yamamoto Ichirohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yamamoto_Ichiroto use flaggedrevs as an alternative to protection was a breakthrough because it allows not only more editability than classic protection but also to better control uses of protection, as I explain above, this allows a much finer distribution, to apply it where it is needed, and only where it is needed, more than classic protection would ever allow. Pending changes is now heavily associated with protection, even on the technical side. The protection policy acts as a safeguard against
Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 configuration change if there's consensus for not using it. On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Cenarium sysop cenarium.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 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 be hard to define one in advance, but that's how it is. On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 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 limit initially came from the Foundation side of things rather than from the community, I was being especially careful not to presume. But from the mailing list and on-wiki goings on, it looks like the community prefers a software-enforced numeric limit regardless of technical capacity, so we'll plan to leave the limit in place until we hear otherwise. I think the trial was limited by time, rather than number of articles. It's a 2 month trial, if memory serves. After that we need another poll if we're going to keep it going. ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 using level 2 PC-protection is not resolved yet, so we may request a configuration change if there's consensus for not using it. Or we could just do it, since objectors have had *three years* to faff about in. - 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 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 using level 2 PC-protection is not resolved yet, so we may request a configuration change if there's consensus for not using it. Or we could just do it, since objectors have had *three years* to faff about in. - 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 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 be hard to define one in advance, but that's how it is. 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 configuration change if there's consensus for not using it. I am going to stay quite thoroughly out of the discussion as to community readiness or the actual date; the community asked for this ASAP, and if the community changes its mind and wants it enabled later, that's entirely up to the community. However, I do want to say two things. One, delaying isn't free. There has been a lot of work in prep for this, and some of it will have to be done again for a new date, especially on the ops and press sides. If we cancel the June 15th rollout, then once the community is happy that things are sorted, we'll have to go back and find a new date that works for the FlaggedRevs people, the ops people, and the communications people, and hope that we can get time for reporters on Jimmy's calendar again. Two, the community has been asking for this ASAP all year, so any request to delay has to be clear enough and strong enough to obviously override that long-established and widely supported consensus. So far it's 7 to 5, which is neither clear nor strong. Regardless, we will be rolling out the FlaggedRevs code changes to all wikis tonight as scheduled. That should have no effect on enwiki and hopefully small effects on current FlaggedRevs users, so there's no reason to delay that part of it. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 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 be hard to define one in advance, but that's how it is. 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 configuration change if there's consensus for not using it. I am going to stay quite thoroughly out of the discussion as to community readiness or the actual date; the community asked for this ASAP, and if the community changes its mind and wants it enabled later, that's entirely up to the community. However, I do want to say two things. One, delaying isn't free. There has been a lot of work in prep for this, and some of it will have to be done again for a new date, especially on the ops and press sides. If we cancel the June 15th rollout, then once the community is happy that things are sorted, we'll have to go back and find a new date that works for the FlaggedRevs people, the ops people, and the communications people, and hope that we can get time for reporters on Jimmy's calendar again. Two, the community has been asking for this ASAP all year, so any request to delay has to be clear enough and strong enough to obviously override that long-established and widely supported consensus. So far it's 7 to 5, which is neither clear nor strong. Regardless, we will be rolling out the FlaggedRevs code changes to all wikis tonight as scheduled. That should have no effect on enwiki and hopefully small effects on current FlaggedRevs users, so there's no reason to delay that part of it. William ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- ~A ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 that I
feel we should proceed at this time.
Having said that, I feel extremely strongly that we need to be willing to
take extra steps to protect the editors (particularly the non-admins) who
are putting their editorial reputations on the line to help us find out if
this is a workable process. We need for the participants to make mistakes
(so we can figure out how to fix them), to give us honest feedback from the
ordinary editor perspective, to make sure that the tool works in the way
it's expected to, and to figure out whether the parameters we've set for
tool use are realistic and viable.
I think one thing that is missing from this entire trial process is that
there are no broadly accepted objectives, and conflicting supposed
measurables for determining whether or not the tool has made a difference.
These are some of the things I've heard bandied about:
*Pending changes will encourage more non-editors to try to edit, and these
new editors will become part of our community.
---Just because someone edits an article doesn't mean that they actually
helped. We will have no realistic way of measuring how many new editors made
useful edits and how many made vandalistic ones. Nor, if they are IP
editors, will we be able to say with any certainty whether they actually
stick around to become contributing editors.
---I'd like to hear from someone in the know whether or not we will be able
to determine if new accounts created during this period had their first edit
on an article under pending changes protection. If we can't tell that, then
we cannot attribute any higher-than-usual number of new editors to the use
of this tool.
*Pending changes will protect more BLPs.
---The same criteria for protection continue to apply. If the article does
not qualify for semi- or full protection, it does not qualify for pending
changes either. Pending changes is being billed as an alternative to semi-
or full protection and is explicitly not to be used as a means to extend
protection to articles that would not otherwise qualify. At the end of the
trial, there should be no significant difference in the total number of
articles covered by one of the three forms of protection than there is at
the time we start the clock.
*Pending changes will help stop edit wars
---Edit wars are content disputes, and need to proceed through our normal
content discussion process; pages that have been protected because of edit
wars are not eligible for pending changes. The only exception is if an
article is semi-protected to keep anons/unconfirmed users from repeatedly
adding the same vandalistic or BLP-violating material, and that is vandalism
control as opposed to edit-warring.
*Pending changes will reduce visible vandalism
---Um, no. If every review of a pending change is carried out correctly,
there should be no difference in the amount of vandalism viewable by the
general reader. That's because otherwise the articles would have been semi-
or fully protected, and almost all vandalistic edits would have been
rejected by the software.
*Nobody's being prevented from editing in the way they always have
---We won't know until we try this part. If we see autoconfirmed editors
having their edits caught in the pending review queues of articles on Level
1 pending changes, then this is patently false; their edits have always been
publicly visible from the time they hit save. This is data that would be
really valuable to capture, if there is a way to do so.
---As well, editors who take on reviewer permissions will automatically
have their edits accepted, even on formerly fully protected articles (should
we decide to try Level 2 pending changes). The reviewer permission goes with
them everywhere, so they will now have to review any pending changes before
making their own edits to articles that may be part of the trial.
*Anonymous editors will now be able to edit the [[George W. Bush]] and
[[Barack Obama]] articles
---No they won't. This was actually one of the first, and easiest decisions
made by the on-wiki team looking at trial implementation processes. There is
no reasonable chance that the number of useful edits will make up for the
incessant vandalism and BLP violations in what are already a {{good}} and
{{featured}} article respectively. They certainly won't be part of the
trial, and even if the community decides to continue using this tool, almost
every other BLP in the entire project would be a better candidate for
pending changes than these ones. Even the German Wikipedia still has some
protected articles.
Sonow that I have deflated everyone's expectationsWe really do need
to think about what we would consider to be a useful outcome in
Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off. Assuming that the trial starts on time, it will also end on time. I'll note that both the start and the end of the trial are mainly up to the community. People have to agree to start using it, and which articles to start with. 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, semi-protection, but that seems a bit crude.) So I think the real question isn't the WMF's intention; it's the community's intention. As it should be. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 in all respects or just the opposite, so the decision might in fact be non-controversial On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: 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, just launch the damn thing already! +1 Great! That is certainly how I feel about it, so I'm relieved the community feels likewise. For those similarly enthusiastic, there is, as Cenarium points out, still some community work that needs to be done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Flagged_revisions_trial One thing that definitely needs sorting out is when the limit of 2000 Pending Changes articles gets raised. We'll get some numbers on performance impact after it has been in use for a bit, but there has been some talk that we shouldn't raise the number purely because the servers can handle it. It'd be nice to have a clear signal on that by the time the technical issues are sorted. William ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 from the community, I was being especially careful not to presume. But from the mailing list and on-wiki goings on, it looks like the community prefers a software-enforced numeric limit regardless of technical capacity, so we'll plan to leave the limit in place until we hear otherwise. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 limit initially came from the Foundation side of things rather than from the community, I was being especially careful not to presume. But from the mailing list and on-wiki goings on, it looks like the community prefers a software-enforced numeric limit regardless of technical capacity, so we'll plan to leave the limit in place until we hear otherwise. I think the trial was limited by time, rather than number of articles. It's a 2 month trial, if memory serves. After that we need another poll if we're going to keep it going. ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 be hard to define one in advance, but that's how it is. On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 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 limit initially came from the Foundation side of things rather than from the community, I was being especially careful not to presume. But from the mailing list and on-wiki goings on, it looks like the community prefers a software-enforced numeric limit regardless of technical capacity, so we'll plan to leave the limit in place until we hear otherwise. I think the trial was limited by time, rather than number of articles. It's a 2 month trial, if memory serves. After that we need another poll if we're going to keep it going. ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:31 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchfulltext=Searchns0=1ns1=1ns2=1ns3=1ns4=1ns5=1ns6=1ns7=1ns8=1ns9=1ns10=1ns11=1ns12=1ns13=1ns14=1ns15=1ns100=1ns101=1ns108=1ns109=1redirs=0search=WP%3AFlagged Will get most of the pages (in the WP ns at least). -Peachey ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 have announced a later date. If in the future the community would like X weeks of cushion to prepare for a feature change, I think that's a very reasonable thing to ask for. The time wouldn't be wasted; there's plenty of good stuff left to do. William On 06/12/2010 06:59 AM, Cenarium sysop wrote: 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, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:31 AM, K. Peacheyp858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Rob Lanphierro...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:54 AM, FT2ft2.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? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchfulltext=Searchns0=1ns1=1ns2=1ns3=1ns4=1ns5=1ns6=1ns7=1ns8=1ns9=1ns10=1ns11=1ns12=1ns13=1ns14=1ns15=1ns100=1ns101=1ns108=1ns109=1redirs=0search=WP%3AFlagged Will get most of the pages (in the WP ns at least). -Peachey ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 have announced a later date. If in the future the community would like X weeks of cushion to prepare for a feature change, I think that's a very reasonable thing to ask for. The time wouldn't be wasted; there's plenty of good stuff left to do. William On 06/12/2010 06:59 AM, Cenarium sysop wrote: 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, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:31 AM, K. Peacheyp858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Rob Lanphierro...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:54 AM, FT2ft2.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? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchfulltext=Searchns0=1ns1=1ns2=1ns3=1ns4=1ns5=1ns6=1ns7=1ns8=1ns9=1ns10=1ns11=1ns12=1ns13=1ns14=1ns15=1ns100=1ns101=1ns108=1ns109=1redirs=0search=WP%3AFlagged Will get most of the pages (in the WP ns at least). -Peachey ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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, based on the theory that people wanted this ASAP. But naturally, we could have announced a later date. If in the future the community would like X weeks of cushion to prepare for a feature change, I think that's a very reasonable thing to ask for. The time wouldn't be wasted; there's plenty of good stuff left to do. William On 06/12/2010 06:59 AM, Cenarium sysop wrote: 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, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:31 AM, K. Peacheyp858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Rob Lanphierro...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:54 AM, FT2ft2.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? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchfulltext=Searchns0=1ns1=1ns2=1ns3=1ns4=1ns5=1ns6=1ns7=1ns8=1ns9=1ns10=1ns11=1ns12=1ns13=1ns14=1ns15=1ns100=1ns101=1ns108=1ns109=1redirs=0search=WP%3AFlagged Will get most of the pages (in the WP ns at least). -Peachey Honestly? We could have picked any delay and there would still be some people it will suprise when it hits. The Vector skin change had been in the header for months and still suprised people. It's been announced and discussed in advance to an adequate degree, IMHO. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 we need to quickly find consensus on remaining policy issues, write documentation, etc. So I wouldn't have preferred that it be launched later, because we've waited enough, but that the launch date be given at least 3 weeks in advance. On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@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. ~A ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 wanted this ASAP. But naturally, we could have announced a later date. If in the future the community would like X weeks of cushion to prepare for a feature change, I think that's a very reasonable thing to ask for. The time wouldn't be wasted; there's plenty of good stuff left to do. William Personally, just launch the damn thing already! KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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. ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 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 we need to quickly find consensus on remaining policy issues, write documentation, etc. So I wouldn't have preferred that it be launched later, because we've waited enough, but that the launch date be given at least 3 weeks in advance. If that were an available option, I surely would have done that. However, pursuing the fastest possible schedule pushes against predictability. If you want greater predictability, you either have to invest more resources in trying to see the future, or you add cushion to your schedule, to increase the chance the actual release date matches your guess. The former means less effort in actually making things, which slows down the project. The latter tends to push back the launch date. So for future projects, the community should definitely keep in mind that asking for something ASAP means lowered schedule predictability, as well as increased project risk, greater chance of bugs, and minimal feature sets. As in so many realms, with software you can get anything you want, but not everything you want. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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, just launch the damn thing already! +1 Great! That is certainly how I feel about it, so I'm relieved the community feels likewise. For those similarly enthusiastic, there is, as Cenarium points out, still some community work that needs to be done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Flagged_revisions_trial One thing that definitely needs sorting out is when the limit of 2000 Pending Changes articles gets raised. We'll get some numbers on performance impact after it has been in use for a bit, but there has been some talk that we shouldn't raise the number purely because the servers can handle it. It'd be nice to have a clear signal on that by the time the technical issues are sorted. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 feature that probably won't be completed by the time the trial is over with). Since these pages will get a lot of traffic during the trial from people wanting to know what was just implemented, it would be great not to confuse them with obsolete information. 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? FT2 ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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, clearly pointing to the page describing the implemented version. This is probably worth using the sitenotice for logged-in users, or at least the watchlist notice, as well. -- - 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 patrolled revisions as part of the trial (which is a separate feature that probably won't be completed by the time the trial is over with). Since these pages will get a lot of traffic during the trial from people wanting to know what was just implemented, it would be great not to confuse them with obsolete information. 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? Would my explanatory graphic be useful? Does someone want to help me sync up the language with what is currently in use? (or does someone else just want the SVG source, I've given copies to some other WMF communities for their own usage). [Responding to FT2 because I'm looking to his leadership on coordinating this kind of thing] ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 refers to patrolled revisions as part of the trial (which is a separate feature that probably won't be completed by the time the trial is over with). [..] 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? That would be wonderful! I suspect there's some sensitivity around the word obsolete since patrolled revisions is a feature that still has a popular following. However, at this point its just not as tightly coupled with the pending changes trial as it once was. So the trick is going to be to decouple the two enough so that it doesn't confuse people about what's happening now versus what is on the roadmap, but not so decoupled that the patrolled revisions proposal gets exiled to Siberia. 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 historical in the sense of for reference only / not live proposals or policies floating in project space, can be moved under that page and acknowledged on it. Also a link from that page to Pending Changes for the live proposal. 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? FT2 On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: 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 refers to patrolled revisions as part of the trial (which is a separate feature that probably won't be completed by the time the trial is over with). [..] 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? That would be wonderful! I suspect there's some sensitivity around the word obsolete since patrolled revisions is a feature that still has a popular following. However, at this point its just not as tightly coupled with the pending changes trial as it once was. So the trick is going to be to decouple the two enough so that it doesn't confuse people about what's happening now versus what is on the roadmap, but not so decoupled that the patrolled revisions proposal gets exiled to Siberia. 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 ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 despite the numerous on- and off-wiki discussions, watchlist notices, and anything short of having a bot send messages to all 12 million + registered users. -MuZemike On 6/8/2010 6:15 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. -Peachey ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobLa/PC_Page_Inventory To everyone here: please add to the list. Also, feel free to move that out of my user space to wherever you feel is appropriate. Thanks 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 been updating people at the Village Pump, and there has been a fair bit of on-wiki activity around this. But I started this particular discussion here because it seemed like the easiest way to get a quick answer from a wide cross-section of people. And honestly, I was a little surprised that nobody here reacted at all to the announcement of a release date, so I wanted to be sure that people here hadn't missed that this was going live in a week. William ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
Assuming all goes well, we're about a week away from releasing the Pending Changes [1] feature on the English Wikipedia for the initial trial. The software seems ready, the ops folks are ready for the rollout, and the Pending Changes team is ready to handle the launch. Does the community also believe it is ready? I think the answer's yes, but I wanted to get a formal yes before we get too close to the launch date. William [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pending_changes ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
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 releasing the Pending Changes [1] feature on the English Wikipedia for the initial trial. The software seems ready, the ops folks are ready for the rollout, and the Pending Changes team is ready to handle the launch. Does the community also believe it is ready? I think the answer's yes, but I wanted to get a formal yes before we get too close to the launch date. William [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pending_changes ___ 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
