On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my
experience,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
reports of people
Carcharoth wrote:
...I've seen cases of HUGGLE and TWINKLE users reverting a
vandalised page to a still-vandalised state, and no-one else checking,
and such vandalised pages (now with the legitimacy of a revert
from an approved user) staying in that state for months.
Indeed. And I've seen
2009/8/17 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Summary: With the encyclopaedia being bigger and more complete, it's
less likely that a onesie's edit is worth keeping.
The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:04 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
It can be problematic. I frequently edit as an IP when I'm at another
machine and can't be bothered logging in. The unexplained reversion
rate is *much* higher than when I edit logged-in, even though the
edits are exactly
Steve Bennett wrote:
The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a rate.
Yes, the mean here might tell less than the median. (I.e. you'd expect
to see very different figures for controversial and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions
- Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
is the volume of reversions
indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed
articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents.
Sage Ross wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone
Maybe we should stop reverting vandalism. It would improve our statistics,
after all.
-Luna
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia approaches its limits - Technology
Guardian
To: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:08 AM
The 'limit' that's being reached is
the article count; so
12 matches
Mail list logo
