On 31 December 2014 at 11:52, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net
wrote:
The below definitely are interesting issues which deserve their own
thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the
implementation very often.
On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits
on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account.
The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the
early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall
seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits
without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the
majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about
2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult
to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have
flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an
edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been approved - which can
sometimes take weeks;
**Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it and
articles covered?
German Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and some other projecs have flagged
revisions (aka pending changes) on ALL articles, and there are others as
well but I don't recall them off the top of my head.
The vast majority of wikiprojects have only a few active members; the most
active on enwiki seem to be related to entertainment and US politics.
Wikiprojects have no relationship with adding flagged revisions on enwiki:
it is a form of page protection and can only be added by administrators
based on specific criteria. Repeated vandalism from unregistered users
is the most common one, followed closely by repeated unsourced
BLP-related/statistical edits by unregistered users. There is a secondary
level of flagged revisions that permits only those with reviewer level
permissions to accept edits; however, it is extremely controversial because
it's all-or-nothing (either you have it for any article or you don't have
that permission at all) and it is very easy to manipulate articles through
this.
others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all
edits by unregistered users (anti-vandalism patrol) whether or not the
content is reasonable or even good.
**I somehow ended up as one on the devolution article and dealt with it;
what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for whatever
reason?
The majority of recent changes patrollers work off the recent changes feed,
not watchlists.
A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in,
and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my
edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
**Which of the above systems did this or usual editing practices from
questionable editors?
I suspect this was people working off the recent changes feed. You can
select reviewing all edits or only those from unregistered (IP) editors,
and quite a few RC patrollers *only* monitor IP edits.
Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes to
the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors? That
projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal reasons
or POV reasons?
In fairness here, all of the technologies that have been built to reduce
vandalism/crappy editing by inexperienced editors were built at the request
of (and often by) members of the editing communities. Most edit filters
are written by community members, and the overall management of the edit
filters is done by community members; the WMF staff only step in if a
filter is having a problematic effect on something core like page load
time.
I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of their
$50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but nothing to
support editors.
REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors to
help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at least
showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b)
mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes.
I don't know where you get your data about REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS - or how
comparable it would be given the commercial and profit-oriented and
expertise-oriented differences between them and us. But I'm not averse
to the WMF doing some significant beefing up of the community advocacy
department.
Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
