On 06/27/2010 09:34 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
[Ian Woolard wrote:]
No, it's a disastrous idea; it's inherently antithetic to NPOV. What
you'd be doing is creating articles that are deliberately non NPOV.
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous
idea?
Just the
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
I thought these lists were subscribed to the announcements list, but
apparently not. Apologies if a duplicate turns up later.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
: William Pietri will...@scissor.com
To: announc...@lists.wikimedia.org
As scheduled, Pending Changes went live on the English Wikipedia just
after 4 pm Pacific (23:00 UTC) this afternoon!
The details of the trial are still being worked out by the English
Wikipedia community, but it looks like
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
On 06/14/2010 06:46 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 15/06/2010, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Have there been any other media outlets, blogs, etc. who see Pending
Changes as a loosening of controls? I haven't; perhaps I've been
hanging around with the community too much who say it
On 06/14/2010 08:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
An edit is an edit. An act in completion by itself. For it to not
stick it must be_reverted_, another act— not something passive.
Perhaps it might sit unflagged for some time... but even in the worst
case someone with the authority will
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
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
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit
a date for the minimum feature set, based on the theory that people
wanted this ASAP. But naturally, we could
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit
a date for the minimum feature set, based on the theory that people
wanted this ASAP. But naturally, we could
On 06/12/2010 01:27 PM, Cenarium sysop wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Amory Meltzeramorymelt...@gmail.comwrote:
There was always going to be a bit of Damned if you do, Damned if you
don't; It's just unavoidable in a community this large.
As I'm actively involved in the
On 06/12/2010 02:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 June 2010 22:04, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote:
On 12/06/2010 18:13, William Pietri wrote:
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
Personally
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
On 06/09/2010 12:39 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Our current plan is to raise that limit gradually as the performance
implications become clear. If the community wants us to keep some hard
limit, that's also doable.
With the utmost of respect, what you
On 06/08/2010 01:32 PM, William Pietri wrote:
On 06/08/2010 01:08 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Are there any technical limits beyond a page count? Can we - for
example - use it on talk pages or redirects?
I believe redirects should work, although when I went to double-check
On 06/09/2010 02:30 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
I'd agree with this. A limit - even if it's not technically needed -
which can be altered after a bedding-in period is a great idea, and
it's probably an improvement on the situation without one. If nothing
else, it avoids us being overambitious,
Thanks for doing this.
On 06/08/2010 12:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Some of our pages are locked from*anyone* editing them. With this,
we can open those up so people can edit the draft version, which then
goes live. Should be on the order of minutes, if it's over an hour
it's too slow. The
On 06/08/2010 12:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
'Cos it was a big part of the plan in past iterations. It was news to
me that isn't a current part of the plan, for instance.
Regarding the BLP question, there's no technical limitation, but that's
different than the question of what the community
On 06/08/2010 01:08 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Are there any technical limits beyond a page count? Can we - for
example - use it on talk pages or redirects?
I think it's configured per namespace, so one technically could use it
for talk pages, but I believe the configuration we're planning
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
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
On 06/02/2010 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise
some topics are just never going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for FAs to be about
On 05/28/2010 08:31 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
We may still have enough admins to do the urgent admin tasks for quite
some time to come; But I can see us becoming more dependant on the
occasional admin who can clear a 100 article backlog at CSD in an
hour or two, and I fear a growing
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The loose-end tidying and rollout prep proceeds apace. This week's
rollout prep includes preparing for an emergency rollback, something
that we don't expect will be necessary but for which we nonetheless need
to be ready.
We've been
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The quick summary is that we are continuing with pre-rollout activities,
including UI polish, text and naming cleanup, and rollout planning.
One important milestone passed is that Tim Starling has looked over the
code and done some
On 05/20/2010 01:13 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
Ah, but it would be confusing to be out of step with other websites,
wouldn't it? Never mind that Wikipedia is sui generis and well known in
its own terms, it would be confusing not to conform to other sites in
having design imposed, not bubbling
On 05/20/2010 07:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote:
But
assuming a 99:1 novice to expert ratio for our traffic, the current
approach must have saved an awful lot of extra clicks from novices.
Ahh ... do we have numbers from
On 05/14/2010 04:23 AM, AGK wrote:
Thanks for the update William. It seems like we're getting very close
to release now, which is great to hear.
We're very excited, too.
On 14 May 2010 06:25, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote:
we will be getting
together with Rob H. and the rest
On 05/14/2010 01:52 PM, AGK wrote:
Ooh, that's nifty. I didn't know it existed either. Will they be
testing FlaggedRevs on the site, now that it's not needed for vector?
We do have our very own playpen here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
The long-term plan is to
On 05/14/2010 01:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
[2] Except those of you who already have them. But for you, we have
a whole wiki that you can go wild on. You can even have a wheel war
if you want and we won't tell a soul.
Should you really encourage behavior such as wheel warring? Even
On 05/14/2010 02:07 PM, AGK wrote:
On 14 May 2010 22:02, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote:
Was there something about their prototype that you wanted to see
included on flaggedrevs.labs?
Really just the vector skin and the other arrangements that have just
been rolled out
On 05/14/2010 02:13 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Oh, you're talking about the test wiki?
Wow, never mind. My profound apologies. I have trouble interpreting
inflection even offline.
No worries! If I had thought somebody were suggesting wheel warring on
enwiki, I'd ask 'em about it too.
On 05/14/2010 03:34 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 14/05/2010, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote:
No worries! If I had thought somebody were suggesting wheel warring on
enwiki, I'd ask 'em about it too.
It's not acceptable *ever*.
Ok. What I have learned here is that
On 05/13/2010 04:38 AM, AGK wrote:
But although it's too early for the mainstream media to have covered
the redesign, what reception the blogosphere has given it seems to be
generally negative. (Google 'wikipedia new design' and take a look at
the blog posts and comments. But take the comments
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
As I mentioned last week, we are starting pre-rollout activities while
we finish up the last bits of development. Now that the successful
launch of the new enwiki UI is out of the way, we will be getting
together with Rob H. and the
On 3 May 2010 17:59, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
As the software currently stands, however, it generates some rather
obnoxious messages advising you that your edits won't be visible until
they've been reviewed... but I hope that we get rid of that before launch.
On 05/03/2010
On 05/03/2010 06:13 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
Is there a good usability-based way
to do testing for these questions? (Has it been done, or discussed
somewhere?) All I've got to go on is gut feelings one way or another.
Great question!
There are two broad sorts of testing typically done
On 05/06/2010 04:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote:
We discussed this at some length today, and I wanted to update everybody.
Who is the we in your message? (I'm just asking because its entirely
ambiguous, since
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The main news is that the team had a meeting this week with Danese and
Erik to discuss rollout plans. Everybody concurs that we're close enough
to launch to start a few release-related activities:
1) Starting a discussion with the
These are great questions, and we're actually having a big meeting about
the project this afternoon, so I'll be sure to raise them to make sure
we all have the same notion. That said, a few of quick responses from my
perspective:
On 05/03/2010 08:15 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
Since it does seem
On 04/29/2010 03:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Can you point me to where it was decided to admonish new editors with
statements like Changes will be published once an authorized user reviews
them. (in all red) after they make an
On 04/30/2010 01:34 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
but the general point
remains -- you can set a cookie for an unregistered user and it will
work as you'd like, causing the user to skip the Squid cache on all
pages until the cookie expires.
This already happens when users edit.
On 04/30/2010 04:11 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
But seriously, the issue of encouraging people to edit is crucial.
Those who want to edit for malicious reasons will nearly always be
prepared to jump through hoops, and those most likely to be
discouraged by extra hoops to jump through will include
Has anybody actually studied the effect on actual users of removing
schemes like [[Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key]] in favor of IPA?
It's obvious that having IPA pronunciations advances our mission for a
certain highly educated segment of user. But for the rest of our
readers, the
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Now recovered from the developer meeting, we have made further progress,
and have only a few known issues between us and release.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
On 04/18/2010 08:42 AM, David Goodman wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
I've always thought it strange that there is no real established
process for allowing submission of external peer reviews. There are
many articles where there are experts in the topic in question
On 04/16/2010 05:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
And the Cuil search engine is still the shining example of why Cuil
Theory exists. It's comically awful and is most useful to point the
kids at and tell them Google got popular by not sucking like that.
It is true that failure is important to future
On 04/16/2010 03:09 PM, Nathan wrote:
http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors
He's not too far off the mark with some of his comments in that blog;
it's an unfortunate side effect of the style of communication the
Internet encourages that experimentation
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Thanks to the developer meetup in Germany and mid-term exams for Aaron,
there has been no significant change since last week. However, the lack
of new requests suggests we're pretty close to something releasable.
If you'd like to
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
More progress has been made, and new requests have tapered off
substantially, which suggests that a release is within reach.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit
that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
I think the reason people feel that we can generally detect PR spin in
the wiki environment is that PR people
On 04/02/2010 12:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong
with it?
Possibly, which is the problem. The main function of PR is to put the
best spin on things in a way that everybody accepts that as the truth.
By its nature, it's
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Feedback from users has dropped off, which we are taking as a sign that
people are relatively happy with things.
If that's not the case, or if you'd like to test it for yourself, start
here:
On 03/27/2010 09:49 PM, Keegan Paul wrote:
What I'm interested in is thoughts of why New Contributors has statistically
declined sharply, but the list of active contributors has much less of a
slope and even less so for very active contributors.
What happened in the first six months of 2007?
I just received an odd email suggesting I hand over my admin account to
the Wikipedia Freedom Fighters. I see that they did something similar
back in May. Whether this is an actual effort or just a way to stir up
trouble, I dunno -- the content was ridiculous enough that I figure it's
probably
Hi! On behalf of the FlaggedRevs team, I'd like to announce that Flagged
Protection, the proposed use of Flagged Revisions on the English
Wikipedia, is ready for more testing. We have made a number of changes
to improve clarity and usability for both novices and experienced editors.
If you
On 01/26/2010 01:18 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The problem is that even if you're only supposed to remove contentious
unsourced material, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to you if you
remove noncontentious material.
I think it's reasonable to ask the remover if they're actually
On 01/06/2010 08:47 AM, geni wrote:
Did someone just seriously admit that the WMF has been following a
It’s done when it’s done process on this? They are aware that we
have quite an article on that topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever
I could be wrong about what
On 01/02/2010 03:25 PM, altally wrote:
Yes, it's not that difficult to create an account and wait a few days is it?
My general rule of thumb is that you lose 20% of participants for each
click you add to a flow. It varies a lot by circumstance, but the
principle has been proven over and over:
On 01/04/2010 12:45 PM, David Gerard wrote:
What was Aaron Swartz's numbers - a huge percentage of the actual text
kept in articles added by anons? Then heavily processed by the
regulars.
But keeping out the n00bs is how to make Wikipedia decline into complacency.
Makes sense to me. If
On 01/04/2010 11:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Bad presentation in the edit isn't, in my view, the biggest problem
with WYSIWYG systems the problem is that they frequently behave
inscrutably, even ones designed from the start as WYSIWYG (as opposed
to boltons as we'd have). Issues like...
On 12/15/2009 01:15 PM, Judson Dunn wrote:
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/12/wikis-fundraising-ads-send-wrong-message.html
Ah, well. :)
From working on assorted ad-supported sites, I understand why they call
this out, but I doubt it's actually an issue.
In the early days of
Charles Matthews wrote:
Anyone else feel that Mr. Murdoch's little list beginning 1. Trash
Google rather than actually noindex News Corp's pages has Wikipedia as
alternate new source somewhere on it?
Anything's possible, but I doubt it.
Murdoch's flaws are surely numerous but his
David Gerard wrote:
2009/11/15 William Pietri will...@scissor.com:
[...] I'm just saying
that we don't have to speculate; we can run all the ones that don't seem
blatantly counterproductive, and find out how well they do. Even better,
we can automatically optimize which we show and how
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:26 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
People are doing some interesting work with auto-optimized ad runs that
we could look at adapting for next year. Given our massive amounts of
traffic, we could accept a pretty broad range
geni wrote:
Is there an actual place to discuss the wording of such banners?
It's ended up a bit spread out but:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Launch_Feedback
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners
That's quite some feedback.
Has
67 matches
Mail list logo
