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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082603606.html?hpid=sec-tech
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
While some pages are robust and balanced, he added, there are other
pages that leave a lot to be desired, to put it bluntly.
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
I don't equate second hand witness to secondary source.
A primary source is the first source we have that describes a certain
event.
Matilda was baptised in the Church of St Mary last Easter is a
primary source if the author isn't merely parroting some other known
source. The author doesn't
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
There is a perennial media narrative that unmediated content
production cannot possibly work, as it goes against everything media
people understand. They have run pretty much THE SAME story about
Wikipedia every year since it was created.
This
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
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive
polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme
appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote.
Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the author the latitude
to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
That perennial media narrative is a meme you're fighting.
I think part of it is that it's much simpler than the rather subtle
truth. Meme: Wikipedia had the goal of complete openness and anarchy,
but it failed and they
The Daily Mail is hardly local. Sadly. It's a crappy paper. all the same.
On 8/26/09, Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
They hope the switch to volunteer editors will curb malicious tampering and
reduce the risk of lawsuits
We're
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and
attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe
they're following Wikipedia policy.
I tend to avoid [[WP:AN]]--I don't need moar dramah--but if this is
true, then it shouldn't be happening.
Emily
On
The future template was deleted, oh, in 2007 of something. I'll try
to find that link to that discussion.
Any attempt to recreate this excrescence can safely be speedied.
On 8/26/09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
There has been a centralised discussion on deprecating future
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com:
It's 2009. Why is this happening?
Because voting is the only practical way of a large number of people
making a decision. The policies date back to when we were a small
project and could actually discuss things and reach a consensus, that
just isn't
Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive
polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme
appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote.
Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the author the latitude
to falsely
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive
polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme
appeared on Wikipedia: the !vote.
Unlike the vote, the !vote seems to afford the
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
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to
wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting
or !voting is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by
That sounds strange. From the discussion I read, these templates had
been around a while and spreading. Were they actually recreations that
no-one noticed? Probably best to go to the on-wiki discussions at this
point.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com
2009/8/28 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Sure, but that's not what the phrase is actually used to mean.
What does it mean then?
In the context of RFA? It means a vote with a required supermajority
of 75% with some obviously invalid votes discounted and on very rare
occasions (getting rarer
38 matches
Mail list logo
