Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether
we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]]
is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this
becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the
current version (and, if necessary, applying the usual 3rr sanctions)
- but is it likely to be one frequently enough to be a practical
inconvenience for the community?
Pakaran
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
>>
>> > Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
>> > reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
>> I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
>> protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
>
>
> Yes, ordinary full protection is still available, as is ordinary
> semi-protection.
>
> There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
> {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
> don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
> stop edit wars.
>
>
> OT: Is there any way I can make my messages thread properly without having
> all messages sent to my email? I prefer to read the web archive.
> ___
> 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:06:45 -0500, Keegan Paul wrote: > In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management, > 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is > for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced > labor. Do they correspond to the "lead", "follow", and "get the hell out of the way" categories from the old expression? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote: >>> Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for >>> a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do >>> with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think >>> the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday >>> edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one >>> or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.) >>> >> the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on >> new contributors. > > What can we do about that? > This is a bit of a tangent, but I think there's actually a huge amount of potential for building other types of visible rewards into the system (beyond the gratification of seeing one's edits go live). We do almost nothing to systematically point editors toward high-priority tasks. There are a lot of ways that might be done; here's an idea I wrote up after other people brought it up at a recent Boston meetup: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Add_video_game-like_features -Sage ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote: > > the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on > > new contributors. > > What can we do about that? > > Emily In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management, 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced labor. ~Keegan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote: > See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information. Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
> the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on > new contributors. What can we do about that? Emily On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote: > the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new > contributors. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard > wrote: >> 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton : >>> 2009/8/28 David Gerard : >> Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing. >> >>> Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to >>> force people into a discussion model which works better in those >>> situations. >> >> >> Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for >> a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do >> with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think >> the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday >> edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one >> or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.) >> >> >> - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
Lack of visible reward. Yes I think that's is it, or part of it anyway. It's why I've been fixated at Knol for a while. Wanting to see my own name in lights. Too bad Wikipedia couldn't have a sister project for publishing scholarly papers. Or could we? Or do we? Will Johnson -Original Message- From: David Goodman To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions? the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton : >> 2009/8/28 David Gerard : > >>> Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. >>> Discussion is a poor substitute for editing. > >> Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to >> force people into a discussion model which works better in those >> situations. > > > Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for > a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do > with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think > the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday > edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one > or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.) > > > - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new contributors. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton : >> 2009/8/28 David Gerard : > >>> Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. >>> Discussion is a poor substitute for editing. > >> Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to >> force people into a discussion model which works better in those >> situations. > > > Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for > a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do > with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think > the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday > edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one > or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.) > > > - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton : > 2009/8/28 David Gerard : >> Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. >> Discussion is a poor substitute for editing. > Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to > force people into a discussion model which works better in those > situations. Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think the lack of visible reward will be helpful in dealing with everyday edit warriors. (If people with the reviewer bit edit-war with it, one or both is likely to get a strong word at the very least.) - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Anthony : > Can someone explain how that works from a technical standpoint? If an > article is flag-protected and has no reviewed version, what shows up to IP > users? It was the most recent version when I originally studied the extension. That could have changed, though. ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/28 David Gerard : > 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton : > >> The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit >> protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people >> discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full >> regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used >> templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it. > > > Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. > Discussion is a poor substitute for editing. Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to force people into a discussion model which works better in those situations. ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Turvey < andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote: > - "Anthony" wrote: > > From: "Anthony" > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Turvey < > andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > > 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to flagging it? >> > >> > >> No - I understand it's just the edit(s) since it was last flagged. > > > > What if it wasn't previously flagged? > > Good question. I understand the current idea is that the first flagged > version should be checked completely, but that will take a lot of work to > implement. > Can someone explain how that works from a technical standpoint? If an article is flag-protected and has no reviewed version, what shows up to IP users? ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton : > The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit > protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people > discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full > regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used > templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it. Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place. Discussion is a poor substitute for editing. - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 :
>
>> There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
>> {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
>> don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
>> stop edit wars.
>
>
> I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
> having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit
protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people
discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full
regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used
templates that aren't protected due to edit wars, but that's about it.
___
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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerard wrote: > I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not > having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time. Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday. On monday, what would be the point of edit warring? You know your edit isn't going to survive until sunday, so no one will see it... (Assuming edit warrers are logical...) 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
As I thought the poll was, we were approving a trial limited in all respects to BLP only. We were also discussing a trial on one thing, not a simultaneous trial of several different proposals. in trying to see how a complicated new routine works, we should be testing either flagged revision or patrolled articles first. And if we are going to test flagged revisions,we should be testing one particular way of doing it, not three different levels at the same time. That is, assuming I correctly understand the page Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions which is very likely to be an incorrect assumption. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey : >> - "Andrew Gray" wrote: >>> >>> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. >> >> I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find >> that? > > I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions BLPs at all, > other than BLP being one of the policies that needs to be checked by > reviewers. > > ___ > 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey : > - "Andrew Gray" wrote: >> >> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. > > I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find > that? I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions BLPs at all, other than BLP being one of the policies that needs to be checked by reviewers. ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey : > - "Andrew Gray" wrote: >> >> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. > > I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find > that? Inference ;-) "Thus, it is proposed to enable patrolled revisions, which uses a passive flag that reviewers can use to mark a revision patrolled, for monitoring purposes, but that has no effect on the version viewed by readers. This passive flag is available for all articles. Flagged protection is a proposal to allow administrators to enable an active flag on a given article, 'flag protecting' it. Reviewers can flag revisions, and the version viewed by readers by default on (semi) flagged protected pages is the latest confirmed revision. During the trial, semi flagged protection is intended to be used with the same requirements as for semi-protection, and full flagged protection (see below), with the same requirements as for full-protection" In short: Patrolled revisions goes on all articles; flagged protection goes on a case-by-case basis pretty much as (semi-) protection does today. There's no BLP-article specific rollout in the current plan. -- - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
- "Andrew Gray" wrote: > > The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that? If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is resurrected - I'm sure there'll be people out there who'll want to argue for it! Andrew ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
- "Carcharoth" wrote: > > Members of the user group "Reviewer". All Admins will automatically be > > given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at > > [[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed > > threshold of number of edits and time since account was opened. An initial > > poll rejected the idea of autopromotion, but I notice this issue has been > > reopened because "only" 50 people participated in that discussion. > > To be fair, as more people become aware of this, there will be more > calls for bigger and longer discussions. That is only natural. Rather > then risks continual re-discussion, it should be made clear that > everyone will get the chance to say something at the end of the trial. > And if they don't, well, that will cause huge upset. The poll was only ever meant to apply to the trial, with the issue open for rethink after the trial was over. I hope that still happens. I think that's really the usefulness of the trial - a lot of people are concerned because they are unsure of how exactly it will work - once we see it working in practice, people are likely may well make up their minds differently. Andrew ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
> The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any > page at all can be open to improvement by anyone. Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of "Well, it isn't *really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being constructive here."? I envision a future where semi and full protection is more anti-edit war, forcing people to use the talk page, and flagged protection is more anti-vandalism. Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:36 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/8/27 Andrew Gray : > >> "Full-flagged protection" allows anyone to edit, but only admins >> (*not* "reviewers") to approve; I would assume conventional >> complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as >> the main page. > > > Jimbo has said he'd love to have flagged revisions applied to the main > page specifically so it can be edited by anyone. The idea is that full > protection can be slowly deprecated and any page at all can be open to > improvement by anyone. > > > - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 :
> There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
> {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
> don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
> stop edit wars.
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
- 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Gray : > "Full-flagged protection" allows anyone to edit, but only admins > (*not* "reviewers") to approve; I would assume conventional > complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as > the main page. Jimbo has said he'd love to have flagged revisions applied to the main page specifically so it can be edited by anyone. The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any page at all can be open to improvement by anyone. - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey : >> 4) Is there any automatic flagging? > > I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be > automatically flagged. No, no. Flagged protection will be applied to - well, articles we choose to apply it to, in the same way as (semi-)protection is now. The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned. Patrolled revisions, on the other hand, seems to be all (mainspace) pages, but will function mainly as a back-end tool and won't affect what people see or people's ability to edit. The idea is we can use it for BLPs, which are the main focus of our problem, but it'll be enabled everywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions#Patrolled_revisions -- - 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
[WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
>
> > Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
> > reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
> I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
> protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Yes, ordinary full protection is still available, as is ordinary
semi-protection.
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
stop edit wars.
OT: Is there any way I can make my messages thread properly without having
all messages sent to my email? I prefer to read the web archive.
___
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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Emily Monroe : >> Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because >> reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. > I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute > protection will still be needed. Will this still be available? I haven't seen anything clearly stating this, but I believe so. "Full-flagged protection" allows anyone to edit, but only admins (*not* "reviewers") to approve; I would assume conventional complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as the main page. -- - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor > how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do > this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course, > once you have the flagged 'protection' in place, reviewers will be > able to prevent removal of the category. But that is something to > watch for. Filter 117, I think, from several months ago. 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
> Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because > reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute protection will still be needed. Will this still be available? Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote: >> >> So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real >> story? >> For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged >> revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the >> future some time". What's the policy going to be? >> > > You get different answers depending on who you ask. This is because > people > tend to tell you how they want it to be rather than what the community > actually approved. Even Jimbo and the foundation staff have been > guilty of > this. > > What is being implemented has two parts, flagged protection and > patrolled > revisions. The important part is flagged protection. It is a new > kind of > protection besides full and semi. When an article is flagged-protected > readers will not see a new version until it has been flagged. > > 1) Is this going to apply to every page? > > No, only on pages that are flagged-protected individually. I expect > there > will be a push to flagged-protect all BLPs (biographies of living > people) > but nothing is decided yet. I would personally support that if there > are > enough reviewers to keep the backlog short. > > >> 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? > > This is very much undecided. Some think becoming a reviewer should > be like > autoconfirmation, some think like rollback, while a few think it > should be > harder to get than adminship. Hopefully it will be adjusted > depending on how > many reviewers are needed. > > >> 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? >> > I don't know yet. There is a test implementation at > http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org > > >> 4) Is there any automatic flagging? > > There are actually three levels of flagged protection. In semi flagged > protection edits by autoconfirmed users are automatically flagged. In > intermediary flagged protection (probably the most common case) only > edits > by reviewers are automatically flagged. In full flagged protection > only > administrators (not reviewers) can flag. > > >> 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to flagging >> it? >> How confident are you meant to be? >> > The reviewer is only meant to check the diff from the previous flagged > version. It should be checked for: > * conflict with the Biographies of Living People policy > * vandalism or patent nonsense > * copyright violations > * legal threats, personal attacks or libel. > > Reviewers are not required to check for neutrality, original research, > sources, etc. Of course, obvious cases are better reverted right > away than > flagged. I expect there will be some conflict over this. In my > opinion it is > very important that we keep the flow of Bold, Revert, Discuss. > Controversial > articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are > afraid of > getting drawn into an edit war. > > >> 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? >> > Who knows? We'll see. > > >> 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing >> articles when they don't have any instant gratification? > > Good question. Perhaps that an edit will eventually go live unless > it's > really bad. > > 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) >> or non-flagged version? > > I think flagged, but you can change it in your preferences. > > >> 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? >> > I am quite sure yes. > > >> 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? > > Surely not. The potential problems depend on how quickly edits get > flagged > and how strict reviewers are. If it takes weeks before anyone even > looks at > an edit and reviewers refuse to flag anything they don't actively > like, then > we are no more open than Britannica. After all, I can email a > suggested > change to them and probably get a reply. Our advantages are: > * You can edit right in the code rather than describe your change in > an > email > * Edits don't just get lost in someones inbox. Eventually an edit is > either > approved or reverted. > * Speed, if we manage > * A more open attitude, I wish > Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no > branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the > regulars > keep editing. > > >> 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? > > Hopefully. Especially for BLPs I think this has a lot of potential. > Currently a damaging edit can last way too long in articles about > obscure > but notable people. > > > So far I ignored the second part: patrolled revisions. This is > enabled on > all articles, but readers see the latest version whether flagged or > not.
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote: >> 1) Is this going to apply to every page? > > No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the > community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future, > or indeed have it more restricted. The German Wikipedia applies in to every > page. Will it apply to talk page or other pages outside of articles if it was rolled out further? Does de-wiki have it apply to all pages in all namespaces? >> 2) Who gets to flag a revision? > > Members of the user group "Reviewer". All Admins will automatically be given > reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at > [[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed > threshold of number of edits and time since account was opened. An initial > poll rejected the idea of autopromotion, but I notice this issue has been > reopened because "only" 50 people participated in that discussion. To be fair, as more people become aware of this, there will be more calls for bigger and longer discussions. That is only natural. Rather then risks continual re-discussion, it should be made clear that everyone will get the chance to say something at the end of the trial. And if they don't, well, that will cause huge upset. > I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be > automatically flagged. This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course, once you have the flagged 'protection' in place, reviewers will be able to prevent removal of the category. But that is something to watch for. > There's a "working draft" at [[Wikipedia:Reviewing guideline]] which says you > can pass an edit if it doesn't contain any vandalism, patent nonsense, > copyvios, legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Basically, this is a high > level review, not intended to go into the details that you might get on a > talk page. Some of those items are difficult to sort out when only taking a brief look at the edit or article. Copyvios in particular can be hard to detect - I hope people are lenient on reviewers who let things slip through. In BLPs, copyvios can sometimes be the subject trying to upload something they have written previously (and not really intending to GFDL what they wrote). > Wikipedia needs to continue recruiting new contributors in order to keep its > current success. This has already been identified as a problem and flagged > revisions may make this worse. We need to address this risk. Both recruiting and *keeping* new contributors (i.e. welcoming them and helping them learn how to edit Wikipedia). 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
Good questions. Here's my personal view:
> So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
The press story (particularly in Britain) seems to be along the lines of:
"Wikipedia, founded on open editing has been forced to restrict editing as
their model has failed"
This is exaggerated, grossly misleading and unduly negative but probably has a
grain of truth at the centre. Bit like press reporting in general then :)
Here's what I've been saying in response:
- Wikipedia has been a phenomenal success - 4th most visited website, number 1
source for knowledge online, 3m articles, close to 5m images on Wikimedia
Commons, partnerships with museums, art galleries, libraries, governments
around the world
- This success is partly down to the early adoption of this principle of
openness - the idea that "anyone can edit". We have no intention of abandoning
this principle
- However, with success comes responsibility, particularly when you have
articles on living people and misinformation in those articles with the
potential to cause harm.
- Flagged revisions is a new tool that helps us manage this risk of harm. It
allows people to edit but doesn't show that edit to the world until it has
passed review.
- Patrolled revisions allows users to choose whether to read the latest version
of an article or the latest reviewed edit
- Some people have been saying that flagged revisions will make Wikipedia more
open where previously protected or semi-protected pages are changed to flagged
revisions. As I've said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with the argument
because although it will probably be true in some cases, the net effect will be
outweighed by the articles that are currently unprotected moving to flagged.
Hence Wikipedia as a whole will become less open.
- The German Wikipedia has run flagged revisions for a year now, and they're
still alive and kicking
- This is, of course, a trial, and many of the details have yet to be decided
which will be done by community discussion. The New York Times sniffed out a
story from a relatively minor technical announcement, which has then spread
around the media.
- Generally if you've been following developments on wiki and you read
something in the press which is different from your understanding of flagged
revisions, your understanding is probably correct. Remember - you're the expert
compared to them!
> 1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the
community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future, or
indeed have it more restricted. The German Wikipedia applies in to every page.
> 2) Who gets to flag a revision?
Members of the user group "Reviewer". All Admins will automatically be given
reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
[[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
threshold of number of edits and time since account was opened. An initial poll
rejected the idea of autopromotion, but I notice this issue has been reopened
because "only" 50 people participated in that discussion.
See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
> Can you flag your own revisions?
I think at the moment the idea was yes.
> 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks?
Don't know. The Trial will clarify a lot of these things so we can see it
working in practice.
> 4) Is there any automatic flagging?
I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be
automatically flagged.
> 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to flagging it?
No - I understand it's just the edit(s) since it was last flagged.
> How confident are you meant to be?
There's a "working draft" at [[Wikipedia:Reviewing guideline]] which says you
can pass an edit if it doesn't contain any vandalism, patent nonsense,
copyvios, legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Basically, this is a high
level review, not intended to go into the details that you might get on a talk
page.
> 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles?
The encouragement will be for people who support the whole idea and want to
give it the commitment to make it work. It's a bit like asking what makes
admins respond to an {{editrequested}} tag on a protected article.
> 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing articles when
> they don't have any instant gratification?
Their edits will still contribute, there will just be a delay in seeing it.
There is, however, a big risk that people will be discouraged from editing. It
will certainly discourage edits that don't pass review!
> 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged)
> or non-flagged version?
Under "flagged protection" anonymous readers see the last flagged edit and
registered readers see the last edit even if it hasn't been flagged.
Under
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Carcharoth : >> I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage >> people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm. > > Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did. My understanding is that the two systems are just different enough it's hard to meaningfully compare, but my ability to confirm this is limited by not speaking German ;-) -- - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/8/27 Carcharoth : > >> If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own >> edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were >> made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked >> "edit this page"? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying "you >> are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving". > > Oooh, this is an *interesting* problem, especially with section > editing. Auto-flagging of own revisions seems to be something you can > turn on or off, at least for the two semi-protected states: Surely de-wiki would have encountered and solved it if it was a problem? > "REVIEWERS: Can edit; a new edit is visible immediately if the > previous version is already confirmed or when the option "confirm this > revision" is selected; otherwise left unconfirmed" > > I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage > people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm. Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did. 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Carcharoth : > If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own > edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were > made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked > "edit this page"? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying "you > are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving". Oooh, this is an *interesting* problem, especially with section editing. Auto-flagging of own revisions seems to be something you can turn on or off, at least for the two semi-protected states: "REVIEWERS: Can edit; a new edit is visible immediately if the previous version is already confirmed or when the option "confirm this revision" is selected; otherwise left unconfirmed" I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm. -- - 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
2009/8/27 Steve Bennett : > So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story? > For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged > revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the > future some time". What's the policy going to be? I was trying to answer this myself last night, so here's my best attempt :-) > So, quick questions: > 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No. It's effectively a new form of protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection#Description ...so basically, any page that might get semi-protected might get this. The original idea of "use this for BLPs" , to my surprise, doesn't seem to be very much in force; it's not going to be blanket-applied to those 400,000 articles, as far as I can tell. There's also a *second* system going in, applied to all pages - patrolled revisions - which is essentially a passive monitoring mechanism and won't in any way affect what version readers see. I'll concentrate only on flagged protection here, since it seems to be the contentious one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patrolled_revisions > 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? Users in the "reviewer" usergroup, which will initially be all admins but can be given out to others; there'll no doubt be a process for this. I believe if you can flag you can flag your own edits - it may be that they're done automatically, I'm not clear on this. > 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? Don't know, but a testing version is being set up. http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page > 4) Is there any automatic flagging? See #2; not sure. > 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to flagging it? The idea is you check everything since the last reviewed edit; ie, "check since last known good version". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_guideline For "fully protected" pages, changes should only be approved if there's consensus for them, or if it's trivial; for "semi-protected" pages, just so long as the edit's not crap. > How confident are you meant to be? How confident are you about rolling back edits today? ;-) > 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? This, I don't know. Protected articles usually have someone who's protected them; it could be we'll find that if you protect an article, there's an assumption it's your job to make sure there's no flagging backlog - a name and shame policy. ;-) Alternatively, if this gets incorporated into one of the automatic editing tools - which it probably will, in time - we'll no doubt be able to tap into the broad pool of automated-editing "vandal fighters" etc. I suspect it'll backlog early and then improve over time, since once 'reviewer' is spread broadly enough - say, to a couple of times the current admin pool, four thousand of our current ten or fifteen thousand active users - then most flag-protected articles will be edited regularly by them in the normal run of things, too. If *anyone* with reviewer rights is currently working with an article, chances are it'll get frequently reviewed - because they want their edits to show up as much as anyone. > 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing > articles when they don't have any instant gratification? The cynic in me says they won't realise they don't get instant gratification until after they've edited it ;-). More practically, flagged protection will cover a few thousand pages - at worst, we're still talking less than one percent of pages. Many contributors won't encounter a flag-protected page from one month to the next. I think it'll annoy some people a bit, and it'll *really* annoy some people who want to be really annoyed about it, but after two months people'll assume this is the way protection has always been. > 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) > or non-flagged version? I am not sure, but they'll be trivially able to switch between them - have a look at a dewiki page, with its little button in the top right - and they'll always *edit* the most recent (non-flagged) version. > 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? So I am informed, but they have to go looking for them - it's like old history versions now. > 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? > 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? "Answer hazy, ask again later". I suspect in the long run it won't do much difference, but it'll be *blamed* (or credited) for any enormous turnarounds; someone I was talking to was swearing blind it destroyed dewiki, caused a catastrophic collapse in the number of IP editors, but on examining the statistics that actually happened six months earlier! If any of this is wrong, please let me know; I've tried to double-check my details, but I'm not 100% confident I've interpreted it all accurately. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own > edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were > made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked > "edit this page"? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying "you > are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving". Good point. > Personally, I think regulars need to encounter the same "delays" as > everyone else. It will open their eyes to what it is like editing > logged out or without an account (more reversion of edits). Yes. That feature seems pretty problematic. It sounds like auto confirmation for established editors will make Wikipedia even more of a clique, by raising the barrier to entry. 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote: > Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no > branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars > keep editing. If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked "edit this page"? To avoid this, you would need a warning saying "you are approving other revisions, not just the one you are saving". Personally, I think regulars need to encounter the same "delays" as everyone else. It will open their eyes to what it is like editing logged out or without an account (more reversion of edits). 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote: > After all, I can email a suggested > change to them and probably get a reply. Actually, I've done this (before their recent contributions stuff), and got a reply within 2 days. I was quite surprised. So I suppose we should adopt new slogan, 'Wikipedia - we're 86% more open to feedback than the Encyclopedia Britannica!' -- gwern ___ 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] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
> > So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story? > For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged > revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the > future some time". What's the policy going to be? > You get different answers depending on who you ask. This is because people tend to tell you how they want it to be rather than what the community actually approved. Even Jimbo and the foundation staff have been guilty of this. What is being implemented has two parts, flagged protection and patrolled revisions. The important part is flagged protection. It is a new kind of protection besides full and semi. When an article is flagged-protected readers will not see a new version until it has been flagged. 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No, only on pages that are flagged-protected individually. I expect there will be a push to flagged-protect all BLPs (biographies of living people) but nothing is decided yet. I would personally support that if there are enough reviewers to keep the backlog short. > 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? This is very much undecided. Some think becoming a reviewer should be like autoconfirmation, some think like rollback, while a few think it should be harder to get than adminship. Hopefully it will be adjusted depending on how many reviewers are needed. > 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? > I don't know yet. There is a test implementation at http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org > 4) Is there any automatic flagging? There are actually three levels of flagged protection. In semi flagged protection edits by autoconfirmed users are automatically flagged. In intermediary flagged protection (probably the most common case) only edits by reviewers are automatically flagged. In full flagged protection only administrators (not reviewers) can flag. > 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to flagging it? > How confident are you meant to be? > The reviewer is only meant to check the diff from the previous flagged version. It should be checked for: * conflict with the Biographies of Living People policy * vandalism or patent nonsense * copyright violations * legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Reviewers are not required to check for neutrality, original research, sources, etc. Of course, obvious cases are better reverted right away than flagged. I expect there will be some conflict over this. In my opinion it is very important that we keep the flow of Bold, Revert, Discuss. Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war. > 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? > Who knows? We'll see. > 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing > articles when they don't have any instant gratification? Good question. Perhaps that an edit will eventually go live unless it's really bad. 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) > or non-flagged version? I think flagged, but you can change it in your preferences. > 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? > I am quite sure yes. > 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? Surely not. The potential problems depend on how quickly edits get flagged and how strict reviewers are. If it takes weeks before anyone even looks at an edit and reviewers refuse to flag anything they don't actively like, then we are no more open than Britannica. After all, I can email a suggested change to them and probably get a reply. Our advantages are: * You can edit right in the code rather than describe your change in an email * Edits don't just get lost in someones inbox. Eventually an edit is either approved or reverted. * Speed, if we manage * A more open attitude, I wish Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars keep editing. > 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? Hopefully. Especially for BLPs I think this has a lot of potential. Currently a damaging edit can last way too long in articles about obscure but notable people. So far I ignored the second part: patrolled revisions. This is enabled on all articles, but readers see the latest version whether flagged or not. It is used to know whether an edit has been checked or not, so the time of recent changes patrollers can be used more efficiently. Whether it will actually be used on all articles is unsure. I expect it will be used mostly on BLPs, and on other articles if the reviewers have time. Finally, this is supposed to be a two month trial. What happens after that is very uncertain. For details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisionsand the subpages linked at the top. /Apoc2400 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists
Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
Ok, Erik's post answered some of these: > So, quick questions: > 1) Is this going to apply to every page? No, BLP's and some others. > 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? Yes. 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
[WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story? For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening "in the future some time". What's the policy going to be? So, quick questions: 1) Is this going to apply to every page? 2) Who gets to flag a revision? Can you flag your own reivsions? 3) What's the interface like? How many clicks? 4) Is there any automatic flagging? 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to flagging it? How confident are you meant to be? 6) What will encourage flaggers to actually bother flagging articles? 7) What will encourage non-flaggers to actually bother editing articles when they don't have any instant gratification? 8) Which view will long time editors see by default? Stable (flagged) or non-flagged version? 9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions? 10) Will this destroy Wikipedia? 11) Will this improve Wikipedia? 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
