On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:41:28 -0400, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more
of
the
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote:
Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day?
As a en.wp newbie, I could only find the poll that the trial has been
discontinued, but nothing after that.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Look, Pending Changes was and still is doomed.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day?
As a en.wp
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:06:10 -0500, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011oldid=428618051#Closure
I think I have seen this one, but I will have a closer look. Thanks for
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day?
As a en.wp newbie, I could only find the poll that the trial
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day?
As a en.wp
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO it worked just fine, but there were too many restrictions on when it
could be used. So actually…Mono is right, it was doomed to fail from the
beginning, regardless of its merits.
-Dan
It's the problem of the English Wikipedia not knowing what it wanted
aside
from knowing it wanted something. Some wanted stable revisions (an
approved
form of an article), others wanted protection but editable, others
wanted
enhanced review of content before publishing, etc. Pending
2011/8/2 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru:
Any chance it would be agreed in the future? There are at least three
working versions on big projects, German, Polish, and Russian Wikipedias
(though I believe in Russian Wikipedia it was recently killed by users
trying to set records and
Hi everyone,
Pending Changes work continues apace. The big thing we'd like to call
everyone's attention to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Call_for_specific_feedback_on_UI_elements
We'd really like to get your input on specific suggestions that we can
implement
Bonjour,
Le vendredi 01 octobre 2010 à 11:10 +1000, John Vandenberg a écrit :
Have the software changes in the last 12 months addressed the issues
raised by French Wikipedia?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Flagged_revisions
If so, maybe they would like to do a
If PC is what the german wiki has been using for some time, i think i
support its usage. Allthough it wont stop vandalism, it expect it does
greatly reduce it, allowing the volunteers to spend their time in a
more useful way. Imho it is working pretty well on the german wiki.
The first time i felt
On 30 September 2010 05:55, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
Whether or not it was reasonable to expect the feature to solve this
problem on the first try, I don't think we should settle for that as our
goal. This particular kind of case is mostly driven by media appeal and
is not
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The test wiki is here: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
(MZMcBride seems to be the most responsive local bureaucrat, if you want to
have admin permissions there.)
Actually, we're not updating the
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Has the foundation considered redeploying their efforts to run pending
change trials in projects other than English Wikipedia?
Have the software changes in the last 12 months addressed the issues
raised by French
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
Of course I have seen it.
I've learned to not assume such things, John. :-) I respect the work
done by the task force, and it's up to the Board to answer whether it
wants to adopt or build upon any of this work. My own take, FWIW, is
that within the
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
Of course I have seen it.
I've learned to not assume such things, John. :-)
You didn't need to assume anything. You only needed to read my email.
There has only been one global
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
This doesn't answer my question, which was:
_When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings, nor do I serve
as a
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
This doesn't answer my question, which was:
_When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support
Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
for the difficult
Erik Moeller wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
This doesn't answer my question, which was:
_When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board
First off, this is getting a little hot under the collar. Cucumbers,
people. Cucumbers.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies
regarding content
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 16:37, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I support PC for a number of reasons including.
1) Concerns are voiced both by academia and our readership regarding
Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses some of these
concerns.
James, we don't want to cater
...@gmail.com wrote:
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 29 September, 2010, 20:55
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 16:37, James
Heilman jmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I support PC
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all
articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active
editors have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in
Amazingly convoluted reply, good sir. And amazingly contradictory in tone.
Keegan Peterzell (also) wrote:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Rec
ommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of
the recommendations on improving the
On 9/29/10 12:51 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to
review the results of their trial, and/or discuss how the next trial
will occur.
I agree with you completely, but also want to point out that this is
exactly where we are right
On 9/29/10 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenbergjay...@gmail.com:
This doesn't answer my question, which was:
_When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
neither on the Board, nor am I part of
On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more
On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already
been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of
On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly
been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now
given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues.
And seeing people
On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly
been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now
given Risker's concerns
Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented
*globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike
en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped
significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP
have remained stable:
On 9/29/2010 7:00 PM, Risker wrote:
On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely
Hi everyone,
As many of you know, the results of the poll to keep Pending Changes
on through a short development cycle were approved for interim usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus
Rob, without wanting to take any wind out of your sails, please don't start
the next trial so soon. The analysis from the first trial is nowhere near
finished, the community has just started to consider criteria for a new
trial, and following the very abnormal majority rules poll, there needs to
Risker,
we've consistently communicated that we'll iteratively update the
Pending Changes codebase with fixes to address known issues, as
documented on:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap#November_2010_Release
This is the assumption on which hundreds of people
Erik -
Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
whether or not this tool is deployed on our project.
Just a quick reminder of the words of William Pietri, who was the lead
developer of this project until the day after the first trial took place:
This is, as the
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
whether or not this tool is deployed on our project.
There have been two massive polls in the English Wikipedia already on
Pending Changes.
2010/9/28 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure
Correct link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
In both these
Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not
consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was
never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct
suggestion that we'd be stuck with it. The only reason the trial was
approved in
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not
consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was
never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct
suggestion that we'd be stuck with it.
necessary for them to be involved in achieving a negative result.
Birgitte SB
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Ah, so it's not going to be the Sue Gardner office hours, it's going to be
the Pending Changes office hours. Well, I suppose that makes sense.
One very large part of the disconnect, I will note, is that a very
significant proportion of the editors who voted to stop the trial on the
second poll
On 28 September 2010 23:12, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for
continuing dropped 10% in two weeks.
You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
Risker/Anne
I haven't followed the discussion at all,
Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support
Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make
everyone happy sometimes.
I
On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
wrote:
We would be better off with more people working
seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature
addresses, plus whatever
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM
On 28
appropriate to our own project.
Risker/Anne
On 28 September 2010 20:25, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September
27
To: Wikimedia
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of
the recommendations on improving the
On 29 September 2010 01:25, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
And how should they know what the consensus is which they should promise to
respect without determining it? They can't very well just turn off an
extension while it is use on hundreds of articles. If the consensus is so
On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
We would be better off with more people working
seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this
Hi Michael,
If the community decides it doesn't want to use Pending Changes, but
the feature remains enabled, it will be a constant battle to police
usage of the extension. Why should the extension remain enabled on the
project if its community decides not to use it? That frankly makes no
sense
On 28 September 2010 23:19, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Aside from the point already made regarding the desires of projects
other than the English Wikipedia - I guess I struggle to see what's so
demotivating about the prospect of a feature
2010/9/28 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
If the trial said the extension would be turned off, and it didn't get
turned off, then whatever the reason...
As a reminder, there was a post-trial poll with very broad
participation and 65% of support for continued use of PC. Jimmy then
put on his
That we are resorting to discussing multiple polls worries me; it
reminds me of the circumstances which led to the English Wikipedia
arbitration case 'date delinking'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ARBDATE
IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to
review the results
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies
regarding content where living people are a subject. i.e. worded more
like the non-free content resolution. Then
Hi folks,
It's been a little while since I've sent out an update (sorry about that).
The Pending Changes trial continues apace, with 1,382 articles configured
to use the feature as of this writing.
Most of the work on the software that powers Pending Changes is focused on
refactoring and
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For a variety of operational reasons, we plan to leave the feature running
while the community decides whether to keep the feature on, assuming that
process lasts no more than a month or so after August 15.
Wanted to
Hi everyone,
As I'm sure you're all aware, the Pending Changes trial began earlier this
week, and seems to be off to a great start. There are many issues to be
sorted out both on the community policy side and on the technical side, but
everyone here seems to grappling with the community issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, William Pietri wrote:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php
Wow, they used the right title! :D
So did the BBC article[1]: Wikipedia unlocks divisive pages for editing
- -Mike
[1]
On 06/16/2010 05:44 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, William Pietri wrote:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php
Wow, they used the right title! :D
So did the BBC article[1]: Wikipedia unlocks divisive pages for editing
Yes, it's really amazing to see the difference in coverage for pretty
much the exact same feature press was reporting on months ago, in the
exact opposite way.
I feel like this could be a case study for PR. Great job!
--
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
Just wanted to give everybody a quick update on Pending Changes.
Basically, it looks like we're in good shape for going live on the
English Wikipedia shortly.
We rolled the new code yesterday afternoon Pacific time. We've had a few
hiccups, but everything seems well in hand. The biggest issue
Hmm... Forwarding messages as attachments clearly doesn't work, either.
Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Sorry for the mess.
William
Original Message
Subject:Pending Changes launched on English Wikipedia
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:03:40 -0700
From:
As requested, here's the weekly Pending Changes update.
We proceed boldly toward launch. The main update is that we have pushed
the English Wikipedia launch back one day to Tuesday, June 15. That will
let us avoid stepping on the WP Academy Israel event, and it means Jimmy
Wales will be
As requested, here's the weekly Pending Changes update.
The big news is that we have picked a date for releasing the new version
of Flagged Revisions and launching the trial of Pending Changes on the
English Wikipedia: June 14.
I'd like to stress that this will be a trial. The goal is to
70 matches
Mail list logo
