Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
Possibly a really professional approach with full-time resources devoted to explaining things and producing a detailed FAQ and managing expectations to slowly build a consensus. But that jibes uncomfortably with the approach where groups of volunteers try and produce the same results. It also feels like campaigning to try and grow a consensus rather than working with what is there already. But that may be needed in cases where opinions are all over the place and people may not be fully informed about something or may polarise into different camps. All gets rather political, really. Carcharoth On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:35 AM, MuZemike wrote: > Does anyone think we can really get an actual "consensus" for anything > big anymore on en.wiki? > > To take from Beeblebrox on the Signpost not too long ago > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-29/The_pending_changes_fiasco): > > "There seems inevitably to come a point in any such attempt where there > are simply too many voices, too many nonsensical objections, too much > petty bickering to get anything done. This is a growing, systemic > problem at Wikipedia, and eventually we are going to have to deal with it." > > The near-converse applies when developers "boldly" turn relatively minor > features on without "community consensus", as seen at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_90#Watchlist_emails > . That is, people complain up and down about it. It is impossible to > have everyone happy about everything. > > -MuZemike > > On 9/13/2011 11:38 AM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 13 September 2011 17:35, Gwern Branwen wrote: >> >>> And in turn, I look forward to the study of the effects of this >>> change, which will never happen despite all promises before. >> >> >> Apparently just over 50% in favour is "broad consensus". Who knew? >> >> (Almost as good as the person who told me "we achieved consensus >> against that change" and it was, literally, a straw poll with two "no" >> and one "yes".) >> >> >> - 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 > > > ___ > 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
Does anyone think we can really get an actual "consensus" for anything big anymore on en.wiki? To take from Beeblebrox on the Signpost not too long ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-29/The_pending_changes_fiasco): "There seems inevitably to come a point in any such attempt where there are simply too many voices, too many nonsensical objections, too much petty bickering to get anything done. This is a growing, systemic problem at Wikipedia, and eventually we are going to have to deal with it." The near-converse applies when developers "boldly" turn relatively minor features on without "community consensus", as seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_90#Watchlist_emails . That is, people complain up and down about it. It is impossible to have everyone happy about everything. -MuZemike On 9/13/2011 11:38 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 13 September 2011 17:35, Gwern Branwen wrote: > >> And in turn, I look forward to the study of the effects of this >> change, which will never happen despite all promises before. > > > Apparently just over 50% in favour is "broad consensus". Who knew? > > (Almost as good as the person who told me "we achieved consensus > against that change" and it was, literally, a straw poll with two "no" > and one "yes".) > > > - 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 ___ 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
On 13 September 2011 17:35, Gwern Branwen wrote: > And in turn, I look forward to the study of the effects of this > change, which will never happen despite all promises before. Apparently just over 50% in favour is "broad consensus". Who knew? (Almost as good as the person who told me "we achieved consensus against that change" and it was, literally, a straw poll with two "no" and one "yes".) - 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM, David Gerard wrote: > It may seem a big goal, but perhaps en:wp can emulate the success of > en:wn. Will we achieve the best-practice level of seven layers of > review? We can but hope. And in turn, I look forward to the study of the effects of this change, which will never happen despite all promises before. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net ___ 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
It may seem a big goal, but perhaps en:wp can emulate the success of en:wn. Will we achieve the best-practice level of seven layers of review? We can but hope. - d. -- Forwarded message -- From: Chad Date: 13 September 2011 17:18 Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial To: Wikimedia developers Forwarding to wikitech-l. Private e-mail threads are not a transparent way to discuss this. -Chad -- Forwarded message -- From: Snotty Wong Date: Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM Subject: Autoconfirmed article creation trial To: Jimbo Wales , Jimmy Wales , sgard...@wikimedia.org, Philippe Beaudette , br...@wikimedia.org, bhar...@wikimedia.org, rlan...@gmail.com, jalexan...@wikimedia.org, ar...@wikimedia.org, aschulz4...@gmail.com, ro...@wikimedia.org, swall...@wikimedia.org, innocentkil...@gmail.com, tstarl...@wikimedia.org, mden...@wikimedia.org Cc: Kudpung , yanksinfin...@aol.com Dear WMF staff and developers, I'm User:Snottywong on en-wiki and I'm emailing you on behalf of several other en-wiki users who have been helping to organize a trial. The trial, which you may already be familiar with, is to temporarily restrict new article creation to autoconfirmed users. If you're unfamiliar with the details, you can catch up by reading the original bugzilla thread I started in an attempt to implement the trial. (See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208) The bugzilla thread has largely become stale, there has been no activity for several weeks. It's clear that some developers are not in favor of this trial, as they believe it will result in a reduction in new editor retention. It would be an assumption of bad faith to say that the developers are purposely ignoring the bugzilla thread in the hopes that the volunteers who organized it will give up on trying to implement it, but sadly it appears this may be happening. This email is an attempt to reopen the lines of communication between the volunteers who organized this trial and the developers, in the hopes that this more private communication will facilitate coordination. I can assure you that nothing you send me in an email will be publicly posted. The situation, from the perspective of the volunteer editors who organized the trial, is this: We put together a proposal to restrict article creation to autoconfirmed editors. We posted notices to the proposal in the most public places on Wikipedia, the village pump, WP:Centralized discussion, etc. Over 500 editors contributed their opinions to the proposal over the course of 2 months. The proposal was then closed by an uninvolved admin, with the view that the proposal had been widely endorsed and there was consensus for the change. The admin also noted that there was strong support for a trial of the changes before they are made permanent, and that this is the direction in which we should proceed. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that it is spectacularly amazing for a proposal that was open for 2 months with 500+ editors contribution to actually succeed. So, we proposed the change, got strong support for it, and then we asked you guys to make it happen. And we feel like the response we got was "we don't think that's a good idea, so we're not going to do it." This was a very disappointing response for us, partly because of the hard work we had put in to organize the proposal and the trial, and partly because it goes against the fundamental Wikipedia concept of governing by consensus; one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia which has gotten it where it is today. After digesting this response for awhile and regrouping, we understand your natural instinct to protect Wikipedia from a change that you believe could hurt it. This is the perspective we're coming from as well: we believe that the number of inappropriate and very poor quality articles that are created every day by very new users is hurting Wikipedia in a different way. We do our best to patrol these new articles and we try to ensure that these inappropriate articles don't make it past our defense mechanisms, but there are simply too many to handle and plenty make it through. This is evident when you click the "Random article" button a few times. It's also understandable that it's easy to assume that this trial, on the surface, will lead to less new editors and less new articles. On the contrary, we believe that it will lead to more serious editors and better quality articles. Quality over quantity. We believe that with Wikipedia approaching 4 million articles, there is a natural decline in the number of new things that can be written about; and that instead of focusing on creating new articles, editors will begin to focus on fixing the ones we already have. But, we will never know what this change would bring unless we actually try it. This is why we want to implement it only as a temporary trial, and reserve judgment until after the trial. We need your h
