Re: [Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?
Hoi Steven, When the facts show that having the CAPTCHA is a demonstrable BAD idea. It should be easy to prevent CAPTCHA from being implemented again. I am sure you know who to speak to. Thanks, GerardM On 5 July 2013 21:02, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote: Wait - removing the captchas lead to a decrease of reverted edits in terms of absolute numbers? Woot? Anyone has an explanation for that? I think the explanation is pretty clear from the numbers Nemo shared. This CAPTCHA was annoying as hell, and was directed not just at people adding links or hitting some kind of AbuseFilter, but everyone who was editing anonymously or with a new account. It was literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. As someone who had to experience that CAPTCHA as a new user on ptwiki last year, I am not surprised at all that we attracted many more positive contributions just by removing it. Sadly, from looking at bug 49860 and gerrit change 69982, it seems that this deeply annoying feature is going to be put back in place. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi Steven, When the facts show that having the CAPTCHA is a demonstrable BAD idea. It should be easy to prevent CAPTCHA from being implemented again. To be precise, the facts do not show that. They show the CAPTCHA is responsible for significantly fewer good-faith contributions from casual editors. That is is or is not a bad idea, however, is a subjective judgment, based on one's weighing of multiple factors. Evidently, large parts of the PTWP community remain convinced that the downsides of not having the CAPTCHA (easier vandalism? admin workload? -- I'm not really following that debate) outweigh the upsides. You (and I) may well disagree, but let's recognize that this depends on our _judgment_ of priorities. Whether or not an editing community's mandate for self-governance should extend to the right to make such a fundamentally anti-wiki measure as the emergency CAPTCHA feature a permanent one is debatable, of course. Asaf -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?
Asaf Bartov, 06/07/2013 23:51: To be precise, the facts do not show that. They show the CAPTCHA is responsible for significantly fewer good-faith contributions from casual editors. That is is or is not a bad idea, however, is a subjective judgment, based on one's weighing of multiple factors. Evidently, large parts of the PTWP community remain convinced that the downsides of not having the CAPTCHA (easier vandalism? admin workload? -- I'm not really following that debate) outweigh the upsides. It's worth noting, among other things, that the vote in question ended just before the stats were released. Nemo You (and I) may well disagree, but let's recognize that this depends on our _judgment_ of priorities. Whether or not an editing community's mandate for self-governance should extend to the right to make such a fundamentally anti-wiki measure as the emergency CAPTCHA feature a permanent one is debatable, of course. Asaf ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Picturing Canada: historic Canadian photography now on Commons
On 1 July 2013 21:26, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm are we going to need to include a dislaimer with regards to some of the captions? Eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scalp_dance,_Blackfoot_Indians_%28HS85-10-18743%29_original.tif I went with using the original caption tag on all uploads. The relative rarity of problematic captions meant that I thought a more explicit disclaimer was probably overkill, compared to (say) the Bundesarchiv caveats. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?
That's been a very complex issue. Henrique will bring more context into here. For now, it's worth mentioning the Portuguese Wikipedia community has been working on this antivandalism project http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Projetos/AntiVandalismoin order to build alternative measures to deal with vandalism and inappropriate edits with a very small portion of the community reverting edits - considering the short and mid terms. They are already aware that even the return of emergency CAPTCHA won't be a definite measure (lasting no more than one year, as per what was agreed) and are handling to create other ways of preventing inappropriate content through new approaches. I actually believe that's a good idea and am happy to see there has been a lot of work on that - out of comfort zone, but also conscious of the current limitations in place. Oona On 6 July 2013 20:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Asaf Bartov, 06/07/2013 23:51: To be precise, the facts do not show that. They show the CAPTCHA is responsible for significantly fewer good-faith contributions from casual editors. That is is or is not a bad idea, however, is a subjective judgment, based on one's weighing of multiple factors. Evidently, large parts of the PTWP community remain convinced that the downsides of not having the CAPTCHA (easier vandalism? admin workload? -- I'm not really following that debate) outweigh the upsides. It's worth noting, among other things, that the vote in question ended just before the stats were released. Nemo You (and I) may well disagree, but let's recognize that this depends on our _judgment_ of priorities. Whether or not an editing community's mandate for self-governance should extend to the right to make such a fundamentally anti-wiki measure as the emergency CAPTCHA feature a permanent one is debatable, of course. Asaf __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=**unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
