On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
30% does the other
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:06:45 -0500, Keegan Paul wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is
for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced
labor.
Do they
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether
we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]]
is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this
becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the
current version (and, if
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote:
See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place.
Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to
force people into a
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David
Message-
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the
future some time. What's the policy going to be?
You get different answers depending on
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
After all, I can email a suggested
change to them and probably get a reply.
Actually, I've done this (before their recent contributions stuff),
and got a reply within 2 days. I was quite surprised.
So I suppose we should adopt
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no
branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars
keep editing.
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
edit this
2009/8/27 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the
future some time. What's the policy going to
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
edit this page? To avoid this, you
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
made in between the time they
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage
people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm.
Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did.
My understanding is that the two systems are just
Good questions. Here's my personal view:
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
The press story (particularly in Britain) seems to be along the lines of:
Wikipedia, founded on open editing has been forced to restrict editing as
their model has failed
This
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Andrew
Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the
community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future,
or
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:58 AM,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor
how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do
this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course,
2009/8/27 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
4) Is there any automatic flagging?
I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be
automatically flagged.
No, no. Flagged protection will be applied to - well, articles we
choose to apply it to, in the same
2009/8/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
Full-flagged protection allows anyone to edit, but only admins
(*not* reviewers) to approve; I would assume conventional
complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as
the main page.
Jimbo has said he'd love to have
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
stop edit wars.
I think it'll
The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any
page at all can be open to improvement by anyone.
Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of Well, it isn't
*really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being
constructive here.? I envision a
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Members of the user group Reviewer. All Admins will automatically be
given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
[[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
threshold of number
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that?
If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is
resurrected - I'm sure there'll
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
that?
Inference ;-)
Thus, it is proposed to enable patrolled
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
that?
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions
As I thought the poll was, we were approving a trial limited in all
respects to BLP only. We were also discussing a trial on one thing,
not a simultaneous trial of several different proposals. in trying to
see how a complicated new routine works, we should be testing either
flagged revision or
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday.
On monday, what would be
2009/8/27 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the
future some time. What's the policy going to be?
So, quick questions:
1) Is this going to apply
Ok, Erik's post answered some of these:
So, quick questions:
1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No, BLP's and some others.
9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions?
Yes.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
34 matches
Mail list logo
