Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > It might be interesting to examine the trend on de.wp - here, the net > drop in IP edits seems to have been part of an overall long-term > trend. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut_8.5/German_editing_stats Thanks for that. It certainly doesn't appear to have had a cataclysmic effect. Steve ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
2009/9/24 Steve Bennett : > Yep. I, for one, am quite apprehensive about what this will mean in > practice. My real fear is that anonymous editors will become even more > marginalised and the rate of new editors will slow further. However, I > have no concrete basis for thinking this, so I'm keeping quiet about > it. It might be interesting to examine the trend on de.wp - here, the net drop in IP edits seems to have been part of an overall long-term trend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut_8.5/German_editing_stats -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > If however the actual result is a shift in editing cultural > attitudes (measured for instance in the rate of non-BLP > articles being semied or protected after the introduction > of FR) towards a stricter and more defensive attitude > towards addition of new information, there clearly are > metrics to evaluate that, and that will be proof of the > other sort. Yep. I, for one, am quite apprehensive about what this will mean in practice. My real fear is that anonymous editors will become even more marginalised and the rate of new editors will slow further. However, I have no concrete basis for thinking this, so I'm keeping quiet about it. Steve ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
2009/9/24 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > If what happens with the roll-out of FR is going to be > a reduction of pages semied or protected fully, that will > be awesome and a definite proof of Jimbos thesis. > If however the actual result is a shift in editing cultural > attitudes (measured for instance in the rate of non-BLP > articles being semied or protected after the introduction > of FR) towards a stricter and more defensive attitude > towards addition of new information, there clearly are > metrics to evaluate that, and that will be proof of the > other sort. Yep. We'll need all the numbers on this we can. - 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html
>>
>> (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the
>> media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to
>> write about and people like me end up on telly.)
>>
>
> Hmm, I feel that Wales' post is kind of at cross-purposes to the meme
> he's trying to defeat:
> 1) Meme: Newbie editors who make edits to random articles will require
> those edits to be approved before going live.
> 2) Rebuttal: Newbie editors will now be able to make edits to
> currently protected articles, albeit with those edits requiring
> approval.
>
> He never explicitly address the issue of editing non-BLP,
> non-protected pages. So to me it comes across like a politician's or a
> corporation's misdirect ("This isn't a tax, this is extending
> healthcare!" or "You think our prices are going up, but we're actually
> introducing the cheapest product we've ever had!")
>
> (I'm not accusing Jimmy of anything underhand or any conspiracy - but
> I think his post promises a bit more rebuttal than it actually
> delivers.)
>
>
I think in this case the proof of the pudding will really be
in the eating.
If what happens with the roll-out of FR is going to be
a reduction of pages semied or protected fully, that will
be awesome and a definite proof of Jimbos thesis.
If however the actual result is a shift in editing cultural
attitudes (measured for instance in the rate of non-BLP
articles being semied or protected after the introduction
of FR) towards a stricter and more defensive attitude
towards addition of new information, there clearly are
metrics to evaluate that, and that will be proof of the
other sort.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
Steve Bennett wrote: > Hmm, I feel that Wales' post is kind of at cross-purposes to the meme > he's trying to defeat: > 1) Meme: Newbie editors who make edits to random articles will require > those edits to be approved before going live. > 2) Rebuttal: Newbie editors will now be able to make edits to > currently protected articles, albeit with those edits requiring > approval. > > It's somewhat oblique, but shrewd enough. Given that WP does operate trade-offs of "openness" versus "editorial control", with scary quotes, it is to some extent negotiable how these are presented in a PR sense. The mainstreamers have spectacularly misinterpreted what is planned (briefly, they might as well have said "kids, in future your edits will all be routed into this big newsroom of disapproving killjoys"). While what is actually going to happen is that the editorial filo pastry will get another layer (which we _hope_ will prove light, tasty and digestible). And some page protection will be removed. Charles ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html
>
> (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the
> media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to
> write about and people like me end up on telly.)
Hmm, I feel that Wales' post is kind of at cross-purposes to the meme
he's trying to defeat:
1) Meme: Newbie editors who make edits to random articles will require
those edits to be approved before going live.
2) Rebuttal: Newbie editors will now be able to make edits to
currently protected articles, albeit with those edits requiring
approval.
He never explicitly address the issue of editing non-BLP,
non-protected pages. So to me it comes across like a politician's or a
corporation's misdirect ("This isn't a tax, this is extending
healthcare!" or "You think our prices are going up, but we're actually
introducing the cheapest product we've ever had!")
(I'm not accusing Jimmy of anything underhand or any conspiracy - but
I think his post promises a bit more rebuttal than it actually
delivers.)
Steve
Steve
___
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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
stevertigo wrote: > "approve" certain edits, and thus the issue of administrator quality > of service is not addressed Previous post correction patch: -and thus the issue +and thus if the issue -Stevertigo ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
Erik Moeller wrote: > "However, as noted above, a global setting to show sighted revisions > in preference to unsighted ones should not be enabled unless and until > it is found to scale sufficiently well, and to not have a dramatic > negative impact on the user experience. Hm. Keep in mind that the need for such functionality is to automate part of what administrators already do. Someone will still have to "approve" certain edits, and thus the issue of administrator quality of service is not addressed, the technolog-ese solution represents just an obfuscation. This is to say little of the behind-the article issue of collaboration and consensus. David Gerard wrote: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html The need to simplify things for the MSM sometimes gets things lost. Jimbo: "..while gently asking those who want to cause trouble to please go somewhere else.." would be better said as: "..while offering suggestions to difficult people of various kinds on how to improve their editing and along with their thinking and expression skills." It is of course great to see Jimbo expressing himself in a more general forum, where he can get out his insights into collaboration that are not limited to just Wikipedia or online documentation interfaces. -Stevertigo ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/9/21 Brian : > > It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly > remember > > when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was > > not one of the original arguments that caused the foundation to contract > its > > development. If anyone knows more than me and cares to clear up my > > misconceptions, that'd be great. > > Flagged Revisions type systems were discussed back in 2002-2003, long > before BLPs became a focal point of concerns, as a method of "sifting" > articles from Wikipedia into stable versions. The idea that flagging > could increase openness for some pages is also not just some recently > applied "spin". I wrote an essay three years ago when the discussion > about a specific implementation became more serious, detailing my own > recommendations for some of the functional requirements of a flagging > system: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/WikiQA > > "However, as noted above, a global setting to show sighted revisions > in preference to unsighted ones should not be enabled unless and until > it is found to scale sufficiently well, and to not have a dramatic > negative impact on the user experience. Instead, revision preference > should first be enabled on a per-page level, allowing administrators > to "quality protect" pages. This would be an alternative to full > protection or semi-protection, and allow edits to be made where it is > currently impossible. The criteria for quality protecting pages could > be expanded over time, allowing for community-directed application of > the functionality, rather than an a priori assumption of scalability." > > The group of users on the German Wikipedia favoring a flagging system > preferred a more conservative implementation, which was my primary > motivation for writing the essay. As a Board member at the time, I > shared my recommendations with Jimmy and others, and we agreed back > then that a model that allowed an increase in openness on pages that > are currently semi-protected would be preferable for en.wp. This is > ultimately also what the en.wp community concluded. > > It's only fair to acknowledge, of course, that a significantly larger > number of pages may end up being "flagged protected" than are > currently semi-protected, resulting in an experience of reduced > openness/immediacy for the pages not previously included in the set. > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > I'm not sure that your essay discusses openness. It mentions that the new model will help with quality and could reduce participation (which could be viewed as openness). I think many people have a hard time with the logic that Jimmy is asking us to follow, which is essentially, "by becoming more closed, we are becoming more open." When I read his Huffington Post essay it did occur to me that it's not exactly true that high profile articles that are usually locked aren't able to be edited by anonymous users. They can and do edit these articles by arguing for, or suggesting, a valuable edit on the talk page. An admin can then come along and make the edit, or briefly unlock the page, etc.. If we compare this model to the FlaggedRevisions model, the difference is really that these anons can edit locked pages without discussion. However, this only increases the chance of the edit being accepted proportionally to the quality and importance of the edit. The best way to increase the chances of getting an edit to stick in both models is to stop by the talk page and make the case for a change in the content of the article. That aspect will remain unchanged. My view of the current system is that we already have a primitive version of Flagged Revision that emerged out of more primitive wiki technologies. So as Joseph Reagle has said in this thread, and as you mention in your essay, the question is really how much of the encyclopedia will be closed on top of what we've already got closed. From your essay: "For the worse, because they could reduce the level of participation, cause frustration, and lead to a shift towards a much more restricted model of editing and reviewing articles than is currently practiced." I think this thread would benefit from some reasonable estimates of the number of articles that will be locked under the new model, that way we know exactly what we're dealing with when we discuss whether or not the new perspective we are being asked to take of Flagged Revisions making the encyclopedia more open is spin, or not spin. ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
Wales writes: > Previously, certain high profile and high risk biographies and other entries > were kept locked to prevent vandalism by users who had not registered > accounts on the site for a 'waiting period' of 4 days." The thing I'm curious about is this will be great openness in those 5,137 (~0.2%) of previously protected pages, but how many unprotected pages will now require Reviewer vetting? ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
2009/9/21 Brian : > It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly remember > when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was > not one of the original arguments that caused the foundation to contract its > development. If anyone knows more than me and cares to clear up my > misconceptions, that'd be great. Flagged Revisions type systems were discussed back in 2002-2003, long before BLPs became a focal point of concerns, as a method of "sifting" articles from Wikipedia into stable versions. The idea that flagging could increase openness for some pages is also not just some recently applied "spin". I wrote an essay three years ago when the discussion about a specific implementation became more serious, detailing my own recommendations for some of the functional requirements of a flagging system: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/WikiQA "However, as noted above, a global setting to show sighted revisions in preference to unsighted ones should not be enabled unless and until it is found to scale sufficiently well, and to not have a dramatic negative impact on the user experience. Instead, revision preference should first be enabled on a per-page level, allowing administrators to "quality protect" pages. This would be an alternative to full protection or semi-protection, and allow edits to be made where it is currently impossible. The criteria for quality protecting pages could be expanded over time, allowing for community-directed application of the functionality, rather than an a priori assumption of scalability." The group of users on the German Wikipedia favoring a flagging system preferred a more conservative implementation, which was my primary motivation for writing the essay. As a Board member at the time, I shared my recommendations with Jimmy and others, and we agreed back then that a model that allowed an increase in openness on pages that are currently semi-protected would be preferable for en.wp. This is ultimately also what the en.wp community concluded. It's only fair to acknowledge, of course, that a significantly larger number of pages may end up being "flagged protected" than are currently semi-protected, resulting in an experience of reduced openness/immediacy for the pages not previously included in the set. -- 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard wrote: > An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens. > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html > > (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the > media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to > write about and people like me end up on telly.) > > > - d. > > Wasn't the order of operations here like so: * BLP issues. Anyone can say anything about anyone alive on one of the most popular websites in the world and it gets published. * Foundation pays tens of thousands of dollars to develop a technology that allows edits to be reviewed before being posted * Some negative press and complaints, but not that much since it hasn't been widely publicized. * Community discussion starts on en.wp with lots of involvement by JW * More and more press, people start noticing that it's actually quite a big shift from the original encyclopedia that anyone could edit *in realtime* * Further community discussion with lots of critics and negative press. It becomes necessary to "spin" the conversation in the direction of not only increased responsibility, but also increased openness. * Conversation eventually turns mostly towards convincing people that this actually makes wikimedia more open, while also making it more responsible. It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly remember when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was not one of the original arguments that caused the foundation to contract its development. If anyone knows more than me and cares to clear up my misconceptions, that'd be great. ___ 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] Jimmy Wales post on Huffington Post
An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html (It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to write about and people like me end up on telly.) - 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
