[WikiEN-l] Students use Wikipedia, they just don't mention doing so

[David Gerard]

http://lisagoldresearch.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/im-shocked-to-discover-theres-gambling-in-this-casino/


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[David Goodman]

It is premature to discuss the details when we have no actual
experience.  Enthusiasm can compensate for structural inadequacies,
and carry us till we get the details correct. We will need to make the
effort of faith a little, for it is not likely we will get things
right at first, and a strong  for such enthusiasm, is to avoid having
to do more drastic remedies,such as deleting articles before there
is a chance to get them sourced, or disallowing unregistered editors.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> doc wrote:
>> That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in
>> a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue,
>> perceptiveness, or diligence.
>>
>
> Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith.
>
>> The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent
>> backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give
>> the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is
>>    inconsistent with useful scrutiny.
>>
>>
> That's a speculative view, probably not supported by any evidence.
>
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Ray Saintonge]

doc wrote:
> That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in 
> a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue, 
> perceptiveness, or diligence.
>   

Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith.

> The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent 
> backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give 
> the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is 
>inconsistent with useful scrutiny.
>
>   
That's a speculative view, probably not supported by any evidence.


Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Earth Deletion Discussion

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Casey Brown wrote:
> >> In the end, it should matter what
> >> is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
> > This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it?
> ? :-)

Doesn't work.  Any rule which says to use common sense will lose out against
a more conventional rule.  The reason is that rules really become necessary
when you need to force someone else to follow them.  If the rule gives a
specific, detailed, description of what is and isn't allowed, with no room
for human judgment, you can force someone else to follow it.  If the rule is
based on human judgment, you can't.

"If everyone agrees, this is what you can do" always loses to "if everyone
doesn't agree, this is what you must do".  After all, having a dispute means
that not everyone agrees.


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Earth Deletion Discussion

[Casey Brown]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Dan Dascalescu
 wrote:
>> In the end, it should matter what
>> is written and how it's supported -- not who wrote it.
>
> This idea sounds great. Is there a policy or rule for it?

? :-)


-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with handing out reviewer status at x+1 
edits, but making it difficult to remove.

It must not be harder to remove than to grant.

But as I say, I am strongly opposed to deploying flagging on all 
articles anyway.

> 
> Those people who are to grant or remove the reviewer right, need to be at a 
> level *above* the "backlog cleanup crew", and "fight vandalism" people.  
> Because that level is too fraught with article-space-conflicts, and 
> additional 
> content-effecting powers would just tend to create more of that, not less.
> 
> Will Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
> less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:20:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:


> If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem 
> of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is 
> granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control 
> and can damage living people.
>>
-

Your fallacy is trying to restrict "reviewer" to the BLP issue.
Imagine you are reviewing away at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And you get caught up in a wheel war between conflicting admins.

Effectively, under the scenario that any admins can remove reviewer rights 
you would have the situation that no non-admin reviewer could EVER review the 
article.

I'm sure you see this.  This is not a new thing.  We sign on more admins to 
take care of the backlogs, not to get into conflicts.

Giving them more conflict-creation powers is not a good thing, it's a bad 
thing.

Those people who are to grant or remove the reviewer right, need to be at a 
level *above* the "backlog cleanup crew", and "fight vandalism" people.  
Because that level is too fraught with article-space-conflicts, and additional 
content-effecting powers would just tend to create more of that, not less.

Will Johnson





**
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

Personally I could agree that the power to "remove reviewer right" could 
be restricted to some special class of user, but only if the power to 
"grant reviewer right" is subject to even more scrutiny.

If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem 
of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is 
granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control 
and can damage living people.

I really have little sympathy for those more concerned about internal 
power structures or egalitarian principles in wikiland, that how what we 
do impacts on the reader, and more importantly the bio subject who is 
the victim of our structural carelessness.



wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> < carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
> 
> Will,  look at the example I provided earlier in this thread.
> Established editors  and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and
> leaving an article in a  state of previous vandalism. How do you begin
> to address that  problem?>>
>  
> You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next  
> to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users 
>  
> who have been in-project ten times longer than they.  I will never, not  
> ever, agree to giving admins extra powers.  They already have several  powers 
> they 
> should not have in my opinion.  The idea behind admins, imho,  was supposed 
> to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat  they 
> were 
> thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs.
>  
> If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of  
> user.  For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing  
> to 
> enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a  
> subordinate one.  No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can  be 
> removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate  
> to 
> admins.  They should not be.
>  
> Will Johnson
>  
>  
>  
> **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
> less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

David Goodman wrote:
> There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at
> least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no
> encyclopedia.

This is a logical fallacy.

That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to 
destroy every living cell within it - is not an argument against ever 
using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy.


> What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that
> can be produced by our methods--

You said "What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate 
encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed
"by our methods" - yes and no

What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact, be produced by 
modifying our methods at points?

Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly 
the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all 
engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a 
particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those 
are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or 
less of these as required to manoeuvre.

Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here 
as it is with any society of zealous true believers.


>and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected 
>beforehand, knowing the chaotic way
> in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors
> and want to correct them; others join  because they see surprisingly
> good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason.
> 
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power 
comes responsibility too.

Some errors are fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress.
However, untamed eventualism is not a suitable doctrine for BLP.


Scott MacDonald PhD etc.




___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

This is a fallacy.

That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to 
destroy every cell within it - is not an argument against ever using 
chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy.


"What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia 
that can be produced" - agreed
"by our methods" - yes and no

What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact be produced, by 
modifying our methods at points?

Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly 
the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all 
engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a 
particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those 
are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or 
less of these as required to manoeuvre.

Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here 
as it is with any society of zealous true believers.

Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power 
comes responsibility too. It is time for Wikipedians to grow up.

Scott MacDonald PhD etc.



David Goodman wrote:
> There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at
> least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no
> encyclopedia.
> 
> What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that
> can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate
> than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way
> in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors
> and want to correct them; others join  because they see surprisingly
> good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason.
> 
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> 
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[David Goodman]

There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at
least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no
encyclopedia.

What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that
can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate
than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way
in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors
and want to correct them; others join  because they see surprisingly
good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM,   wrote:
> < carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
>
> Will,  look at the example I provided earlier in this thread.
> Established editors  and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and
> leaving an article in a  state of previous vandalism. How do you begin
> to address that  problem?>>
>
> You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next
> to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users
> who have been in-project ten times longer than they.  I will never, not
> ever, agree to giving admins extra powers.  They already have several  powers 
> they
> should not have in my opinion.  The idea behind admins, imho,  was supposed
> to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat  they were
> thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs.
>
> If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of
> user.  For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing  to
> enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a
> subordinate one.  No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can  be
> removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate  
> to
> admins.  They should not be.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or
> less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[WJhonson]

<>
 
You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next  
to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users  
who have been in-project ten times longer than they.  I will never, not  
ever, agree to giving admins extra powers.  They already have several  powers 
they 
should not have in my opinion.  The idea behind admins, imho,  was supposed 
to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat  they were 
thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs.
 
If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of  
user.  For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing  to 
enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a  
subordinate one.  No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can  be 
removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate  to 
admins.  They should not be.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] current events in Wikipedia

[David Gerard]

2009/4/2 Al Tally :
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

>> Dunno, but your post ended up in my spam filter for some reason. FYI
>> in case it helps and in case others also had the same problem.
>> Hopefully this repost won't have the same problems.

> Same here. Quite a few posts have in fact. Very annoying.


Mine too. Note we're all on Gmail. Could those on Gmail please find
the original email and mark it "not spam" in the hope the otherwise
lovely Gmail spam filter gets the idea? Thank you :-)


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] current events in Wikipedia

[Al Tally]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Shriram Getc 
> wrote:
> > In order to obtain current events from the Wikipedia in wiki markup, an
> application generally needs to take the following steps:
> >  1. Construct the current date string in the form of "_MO_DA", e.g.,
> "2009_April_1"
> >  2. Perform GET by the URL for the given date string for viewing the page
> source, e.g,
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2009_April_1&action=edit
> >  3. Pick the content of the HTML  element.
> >
> > Since not documented, i'm wondering whether the above is the expected way
> of accessing the current events in Wikipedia? Or is there a more elegant
> solution for the same task?
>
> Dunno, but your post ended up in my spam filter for some reason. FYI
> in case it helps and in case others also had the same problem.
> Hopefully this repost won't have the same problems.
>
> Carcharoth
>

Same here. Quite a few posts have in fact. Very annoying.

-- 
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] current events in Wikipedia

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Shriram Getc  wrote:
> In order to obtain current events from the Wikipedia in wiki markup, an 
> application generally needs to take the following steps:
>  1. Construct the current date string in the form of "_MO_DA", e.g., 
> "2009_April_1"
>  2. Perform GET by the URL for the given date string for viewing the page 
> source, e.g,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2009_April_1&action=edit
>  3. Pick the content of the HTML  element.
>
> Since not documented, i'm wondering whether the above is the expected way of 
> accessing the current events in Wikipedia? Or is there a more elegant 
> solution for the same task?

Dunno, but your post ended up in my spam filter for some reason. FYI
in case it helps and in case others also had the same problem.
Hopefully this repost won't have the same problems.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] current events in Wikipedia

[Shriram Getc]

In order to obtain current events from the Wikipedia in wiki markup, an 
application generally needs to take the following steps:
 1. Construct the current date string in the form of "_MO_DA", e.g., 
"2009_April_1"
 2. Perform GET by the URL for the given date string for viewing the page 
source, e.g,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2009_April_1&action=edit
 3. Pick the content of the HTML  element.

Since not documented, i'm wondering whether the above is the expected way of 
accessing the current events in Wikipedia? Or is there a more elegant solution 
for the same task?

TIA,
Shriram



  
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Sam Korn  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth  
> wrote:
>> Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and
>> replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits
>> made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have
>> been provided for such claims.
>
> I wrote this script a little while ago for this exact purpose:
>
> http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php
>
> Might be useful until you can get this filter running?

It would. Thanks. Though only if people can be found to work on the
output. Logs are not that helpful unless there is a way for people to
mark them (i.e. patrol them) and say "I've looked at this, best if you
go and look at something that no-one has reviewed and marked as done".

Not sure if the abuse filter has been set up for patrolling or not.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Carcharoth]

Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread.
Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and
leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin
to address that problem?

I don't want to link to the revisions in question, as the attacks are
quite nasty (look at the revert I made and what it removed). Please do
go and look, and you will find a whole series of Huggle edits that
reverted the most recent vandalism, but still left the article in an
absolutely unacceptable state. Worse, this continued for a day or two
until I spotted what had been happening.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM,   wrote:
> I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review".
> Review what I said again.
> I said that established users can review, that it should be an
> automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that
> right.
>
> That is quite different from "anyone".
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: doc 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
>
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> I'm in agreement with David here.
>> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly
> be
>> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or
>> remove spurious details.  I think we all do that a bit.  Being a
>> policeman is quite a different role.
>>
>> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all
>> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to
>> unseat a member of the group.  It should probably be automatic at a
>> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature.
>> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for
> admins,
>> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly
>> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants.  We
> don't
>> need any more of that.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>
> This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism -
> and
>  quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post
> for reasoning).
>
> If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can
> review"
>   and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without
> process
> and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review.
>
> Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It
> reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the
> current state of any article. You think giving these same people more
> work will solve the subtler BLP problem?
>
> Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is
> also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the
> subject.
>
> I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no
> difference
> to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try
> it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and
> conterproductive.
>
> For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff
> to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen
> to
> the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us.
>
> Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does
> differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with
> legitimate subject complaints?
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

I did read what you said, and it is bad enough.

The notion that "anyone [with xn edits] can review", and no admin can 
revoke, makes the right less scrutinised that rollback - that has the 
effect of making the quality control utterly useless.

That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in 
a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue, 
perceptiveness, or diligence.

The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent 
backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give 
the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is 
   inconsistent with useful scrutiny.

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review".
> Review what I said again.
> I said that established users can review, that it should be an 
> automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that 
> right.
> 
> That is quite different from "anyone".
> 
> 
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[wjhonson]

I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review".
Review what I said again.
I said that established users can review, that it should be an 
automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that 
right.

That is quite different from "anyone".


-Original Message-
From: doc 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm in agreement with David here.
> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly 
be
> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or
> remove spurious details.  I think we all do that a bit.  Being a
> policeman is quite a different role.
>
> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all
> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to
> unseat a member of the group.  It should probably be automatic at a
> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature.
> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for 
admins,
> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly
> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants.  We 
don't
> need any more of that.
>
> Will Johnson
>

This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - 
and
  quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post
for reasoning).

If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can 
review"
   and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without 
process
and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review.

Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It
reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the
current state of any article. You think giving these same people more
work will solve the subtler BLP problem?

Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is
also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the
subject.

I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no 
difference
to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try
it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and
conterproductive.

For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff
to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen 
to
the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us.

Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does
differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with
legitimate subject complaints?


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Sam Korn]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth  wrote:
> Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and
> replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits
> made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have
> been provided for such claims.

I wrote this script a little while ago for this exact purpose:

http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php

Might be useful until you can get this filter running?

Sam

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:07 AM, doc  wrote:



> Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It
> reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the
> current state of any article. You think giving these same people more
> work will solve the subtler BLP problem?

Agreed. And even obvious problems are missed.

Have a look at the history of this article for examples where what I
presume are Recent Change Patrollers saving revisions of an article
that was clearly still in a vandalised state. Classic example of blind
reversion that only looked at the current vandalism being removed, not
the earlier history or the state the article is being reverted to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Murray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kate_Murray_-_article_history_and_uncaught_vandalism_.2B_massive_number_of_attack_edits_by_IPs

[Something about a lighthouse.]

In case anyone is interested, a filter has been set up to detect
removal of the category "Living people". That was how I came across
the edit above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=117

Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and
replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits
made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have
been provided for such claims.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Erik Moeller]

2009/4/2 doc :
> Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does
> differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with
> legitimate subject complaints?

I'm mostly a tourist on de.wp, but my impression is that it's a combination of

- FlaggedRevs on all articles, with most recently flagged version
shown by default;
- generally higher notability standards than en.wp, on all types of articles;
- higher requirements for IP edits;
- some systematic training for OTRS volunteers to better handle BLP
and other support issues.

There are three active chapter organizations, with Wikimedia Germany
having hired its own dedicated staff, which helps to deal with
escalating problems.

That said, there's been a significant decrease in the number of new
editors per month on de.wp over the last year, more so than in other
large languages. FlaggedRevs in particular can definitely be confusing
for new editors, especially if you have to wait days for your edit to
be approved.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm in agreement with David here.
> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be 
> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or 
> remove spurious details.  I think we all do that a bit.  Being a 
> policeman is quite a different role.
> 
> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all 
> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to 
> unseat a member of the group.  It should probably be automatic at a 
> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature.  
> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, 
> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly 
> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants.  We don't 
> need any more of that.
> 
> Will Johnson
> 

This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - and 
  quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post 
for reasoning).

If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can review" 
  and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without process 
and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review.

Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It 
reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the 
current state of any article. You think giving these same people more 
work will solve the subtler BLP problem?

Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is 
also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the 
subject.

I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no difference 
to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try 
it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and 
conterproductive.

For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff 
to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen to 
the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us.

Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does 
differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with 
legitimate subject complaints?


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l