On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about this. No message on the edit page itself. When they save
the edit, they're redirected to the draft page of that article, with a
message at the top saying something
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The message currently delivered by the software is:
Edits must be reviewed before being published on this page.
And yet the edit will be instantly available to every person on earth
(well, at least all of the people
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The message currently delivered by the software is:
Edits must be reviewed before being published on this page.
And yet the edit will be
agreed on that. I'm very apprehensive about the possible negative
effect on new contributors, but this seems a good solution
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at
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 6 May 2010 22:22, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
We hope that everybody is at least provisionally satisfied with that,
and I'd ask those most worried about this to keep an eye on things after
launch and if necessary raise the issue again, optionally with a
well-earned
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 Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM, William Pietri will...@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 you were quoting me it looks like I was involved,
though I
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The message currently delivered by the software is:
Edits must be reviewed before being published on this page.
And yet the edit will be instantly available to every person on earth
(well, at least all of the
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
On 7 May 2010 01:13, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
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
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
Since it does seem very close to going live, could I ask if plans have
been made for how to handle announcing the arrival of this feature and
any post-implementation problems? Hopefully there won't be any or
many, but are there plans ranging from rollback completely if things
go awfully wrong to
edit wars that break out over this if some aspects of flagged revisions or its
interface are editable and changeable on-wiki (presumably in the Mediawiki
namespace, editable by admins only).
I would have hoped that our project's administrators would be capable
of working on a project without
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Since it does seem very close to going live, could I ask if plans have
been made for how to handle announcing the arrival of this feature and
any post-implementation problems? Hopefully there won't be any or
many,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
having things change mid-edit could be a bit disconcerting!
I've just remembered that in some implementations of this, almost
nothing changes (you have to actively bring pages within the new
system), and hardly
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
having things change mid-edit could be a bit disconcerting!
I've just remembered that in some implementations of this, almost
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.
I'm sure
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
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
If you haven't caught it— my strongly held and long standing recommendation is
that we make the process as invisible as possible: By overloading the cookie
that is set when a user (inc. anons) edits we can switch these people over to
the draft-by-default view, either in a full-on all articles
On 3 May 2010 19:25, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
(I know I'm being repetitive on this point, but I'm going to continue
making it at least until people start arguing that it shouldn't be
done rather than ignoring it or mistakenly believing that it isn't
possible)
I'll say that
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you haven't caught it— my strongly held and long standing recommendation
is that we make the process as invisible as possible: By overloading the
cookie that is set when a user (inc. anons) edits we can switch these people
On 3 May 2010 19:56, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, simply giving the users a link to a page describing the
complete edit life-cycle, This page is [[protected]]., would be
fine as well... those who care could go get a complete understanding,
the vast majority who
On 3 May 2010 20:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2010 19:56, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, simply giving the users a link to a page describing the
complete edit life-cycle, This page is [[protected]]., would be
fine as well... those who care
I don't see what why it is advantageous to not tell an anonymous
editor that their change will only be visible once it has been
approved. Some might even be glad that we're finally bringing in a
peer review system for the more bothersome articles.
AGK
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Anthony wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't see what why it is advantageous to not tell an anonymous
editor that their change will only be visible once it has been
approved. Some might even be glad that we're finally bringing in a
peer review system for the
On 3 May 2010 20:34, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of the notice part— it sound like you support making anons
see the draft version of a page (all pages?) after they've edited?
The two issues are somewhat separable— though I think a weakly worded
notice requires
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2010 20:34, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of the notice part— it sound like you support making anons
see the draft version of a page (all pages?) after they've edited?
The two issues are
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2010 19:56, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, simply giving the users a link to a page describing the
complete edit life-cycle, This page is [[protected]]., would be
fine as well... those
On 3 May 2010 20:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't actively support it or consider it even slightly a showstopper
(it seems a bit of a cherry on top as far as feature priorities go),
but if you have
On 3 May 2010 21:18, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
3. problem: we don't really know how this is going to pan out
3a. I see a lot of conflicting rhetoric about why we want flaggedrevs
and what its role is. Indeed, if the goal is to promote wikipedia as
more accurate (tm), then I
That would be for *most* IP editors, correct?
Because I've run across a few IP editors that seemed to care, even if
they don't edit on a consistent basis.
Emily
On May 3, 2010, at 3:25 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 3 May 2010 20:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010
Because I've run across a few IP editors that seemed to care, even if
they don't edit on a consistent basis.
These type of editors are a pleasure to come across. I suspect more
than a few are current or former editors who can't help but fix an
error they come across when browsing an article.
Okay, true. I just wanted those editors acknowledged. That was all.
I'm a bit nitpicky, and it appears I've caused a digression. Carry on.
Emily
On May 3, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
Because I've run across a few IP editors that seemed to care, even if
they don't edit on a consistent
On 3 May 2010 21:37, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Okay, true. I just wanted those editors acknowledged. That was all.
I'd like more editors to remember them! They're the n00bs we need to
take care not to bite. I've met them too - people who to oh, I edited
Wikipedia once! and it
I've been out of the loop since January-ish, so I was pleased to see
that some headway has been made on implementing FlaggedRevs. I see
that a two-month trial on enwiki has been approved by the community:
*
36 matches
Mail list logo
